Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: NickSE who wrote (10441)	10/2/2003 8:09:03 PM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 793706

I think the horizontal line separating your comments from the article is the culprit. OK, that's probably it. I will stop running it so far. I mentioned earlier that I sent an Email to the LA Times about the smear on Arnold. I got back an immediate answer that indicates, to me, they got a lot of mail like mine. I don't believe they just finished the story. There has been too much info on the Internet about it. In any case, here is my Email and the Times' response ----------------------- To: Dean.Baquet@latimes.com Subject: The Article, "Women Say Schwarzenegger Groped, Humiliated Them" Dear Mr Baquet, I was really surprised to see you run this article. I has been common knowledge all over the Internet that you did this research, and that you were setting on the story. Mickey Kaus predicted that you would run this, but I thought you had too much class to do it. As Andrew Sullivan said this morning, "So a candidate now has to answer charges about his private life leveled for the most part by anonymous accusers, sought out by a newspaper that is campaigning against his candidacy and that waited a week before the recall to unload the details." I have read your paper for 45 years, and this is the worst smear job I have seen you do. Shame on you. Bill Millan ---------------------- Your letter was forwarded to the office of the readers’ representative. Thank you for your comments, which I am including in a report to editors on what readers say about Times coverage. Let me address the concerns raised by many readers. Regarding the necessity of printing the story at all: These allegations have been swirling around Mr. Schwarzenegger for years. Once he became a serious candidate for governor, the Times had to examine them; editors believe people have a right to know if these allegations were true. They also believe that voters ought to have the same information the newspaper has, and they should have it before election day, not after. The article was published five days before election day because that was the first day it was ready. That the story could not be published sooner reflects two factors: The uniquely short duration of this election campaign and difficulty of finding the women, interviewing them and corroborating their stories. Once Schwarzenegger announced in August, The Times assigned several reporters to look into the allegations, mindful that the election cycle was short. When the reporting was done, editors found themselves facing the prospect of publishing just before the election. They therefore faced the decision of either dropping the story because of the timing, or publishing it and letting the readers and voters make their own judgment. Some readers have questioned the anonymity of several of the women in the article. Anonymous sources were included in this article only after extensive interviewing of the women and others who could corroborate their accounts (and in fact, since the story has appeared, Mr. Schwarzenegger has acknowledged and apologized for his past behavior toward women). The Times is in the business of publishing significant information, not concealing it, and that's why the story ran. Finally, The Times has also reported thoroughly on other candidates, pursuing leads that have come up in the course of investigating those individuals and publishing articles that include: 1. A major Sunday story delineating the full case against Governor Davis; extensive coverage of his campaign contributors and their links to government. 2. Disclosures that Arianna Huffington paid almost no state income taxes and that her campaign manager was a tobacco lobbyist. 3. Enterprising coverage of Bustamante's acceptance of Indian casino money; an examination of his campaign manager, Richie Ross, and his lobbying clients; an investigation of a piece of investment property Bustamante owns; an article on Bustamante's brother's problems. 4. An article on the religious beliefs of McClintock's deputy campaign manager, which were disavowed by McClintock; and reporting of his taxpayer-financed perks. Again, I'm sorry you believe this story didn't belong in the Los Angeles Times, but I hope this goes some way toward explaining why editors thought it was both responsible and newsworthy. Jamie Gold Readers' Representative