MUST-READ OF THE DAY
Jill Stewart’s response to John Carroll (and lots more) is here. Unfortunately, because it’s my wife and son’s birthday (both!), I don’t have time to pick out quotes, offer my own observations, etc. All I can do is say: read the whole thing, now.
My only comment is this: if a lot of what Stewart says sounds familiar, it’s because I already said it here.
UPDATE: Festivities are over, and I am free to expound on Stewart’s piece a bit.
Stewart’s piece consists of three parts, but only two are interesting: her response to John Carroll, and an interview with a Times reporter. (A final section, setting forth the opinion of an alleged expert, is superfluous and uninteresting.)
Stewart’s response to Carroll is well-stated, but obvious. As I said, I have already made most of the same points. I can’t be the only one to have done so.
To summarize: Carroll is either guilty of not reading the relevant criticism of his paper (much as he accuses the Dog Trainer’s critics of not reading the Arnold hit piece), or he is deliberately misstating the criticisms, because he can’t respond to the actual criticisms. Either option is inexcusable, because this man has defended the Arnold story in a very visible and very personal way. For those who are paying attention, the name “John S. Carroll” is synonymous with a defense of the Arnold hit piece — a defense that, it is becoming increasingly obvious, just doesn’t add up.
The real potential revelation is Stewart’s interview of a long-time Times reporter. If the interview is accurate, and the allegations made in it are true, then it is explosive.
Why do I say this? Not just because the reporter quoted in the interview says that Carroll took a number of steps that he had to know would delay the story. That would be bad enough, if true. But what would be worse is that Carroll would be publicly revealed to be a dissembler we haven’t seen since the likes of Bill Clinton. The main point of Carroll’s defense is that the Arnold hit piece was not timed to run at the last second. Stewart’s interviewee says that it was — and that the principal culprit was John Carroll.
If Stewart’s interviewee is telling the truth, Carroll’s defense is substantially false. I have already suggested that some of Carroll’s phraseology appears Clintonian in its potential for hairsplitting. Stewart’s interview suggests that this may not be an accident.
Now, I have no idea whether Stewart’s allegations are true. For one thing, Stewart’s interviewee has not put his or her name on the record. If what the interviewee is saying is true, the interviewee’s motive for staying anonymous is obvious. Nevertheless, the anonymity of the source raises troubling questions regarding the reliability of Stewart’s piece — questions similar to the same questions that many critics raised about the Arnold story.
Also, even if Stewart is accurately reporting what her interviewee said, that person could be spinning a tall tale. I have heard enough credible praise of Carroll that I want to believe he is not that dishonest.
But at the same time, what I hear about Carroll is at odds with a very strong, reasoned opinion I have formed about the bias of the L.A. Times over the course of a decade. I have collected examples of this bias on this site for the better part of a year. This bias didn’t start with John Carroll, and it sounds like he has tried to get it under control. Even Stewart’s interviewee says so. Nevertheless, Carroll has been the editor of the Times since I started documenting the paper’s bias on this blog. He bears the ultimate responsibility for what any reasonable observer must conclude is a clear history of skewing the news to conform to the views of a small cabal of editors.
Some may say that I am being extreme when I point out that Howell Raines was brought down by allegations that were arguably less serious than this. But I don’t think this is an extreme observation at all. It is not outlandish to suggest that — if Stewart’s allegations pan out — this incident could end up leading to Carroll’s resignation. As I say, this reporter is all but accusing Carroll of having out-and-out lied to his readers, in the most public way possible. If this were proven, how could Carroll survive?
What is missing now is some clear corroboration of what the interviewee said — like the clandestine taping of Raines’s admissions of favoritism toward Jayson Blair. We don’t know if such proof exists; as a result, we don’t know what the ultimate effect of Stewart’s piece will be.
But I will make one prediction: this story is not going away. The L.A. Times should not continue to sit still, remain mute, and hope it all blows over.
I very much enjoy Jill Stewart’s columns. Her point of view is thought-provoking and usually objective. However, when it comes to the California Correctional Peace Officer’s Association (CCPOA), the union representing California’s prison guards, her objectivity goes out the window.
For example, in her January 23, 2003 column, Stewart called the CCPOA “the most bizarre prison guards’ union in the nation.” Its members, Stewart added, were “freaks of history and circumstance, lightly trained men and women” who, “though their positions require only a GED,” wield enormous power.
Questioning the intelligence of CCPOA members seems to be one of Stewart’s favorite tactics. In a more recent column (4-21-2004), Stewart notes again that guards, who “require no more than a G.E.D. and simple training, fail to control gangs or raging drug use in certain prisons and practice a code of silence.”
Certainly Stewart is justified in questioning whether a labor union should wield so much power in Sacramento and in speculating about the guards’ ability to do their jobs, but she weakens her argument by resorting to name calling and insinuating that an entire class of people are stupid. Even if we assume her generalizations to be correct, do the “highly educated” have more of a right to wield their political power and influence than do “regular folks”?
Comment by J. DiCello — 4/21/2004 @ 7:11 pm
I very much enjoy Jill Stewart’s columns. Her point of view is thought-provoking and usually objective. However, when it comes to the California Correctional Peace Officer’s Association (CCPOA), the union representing California’s prison guards, her objectivity goes out the window.
For example, in her January 23, 2003 column, Stewart called the CCPOA “the most bizarre prison guards’ union in the nation.” Its members, Stewart added, were “freaks of history and circumstance, lightly trained men and women” who, “though their positions require only a GED,” wield enormous power.
Questioning the intelligence of CCPOA members seems to be one of Stewart’s favorite tactics. In a more recent column (4-21-2004), Stewart notes again that guards, who “require no more than a G.E.D. and simple training, fail to control gangs or raging drug use in certain prisons and practice a code of silence.”
Certainly Stewart is justified in questioning whether a labor union should wield so much power in Sacramento and in speculating about the guards’ ability to do their jobs, but she weakens her argument by resorting to name calling and insinuating that an entire class of people are stupid. Even if we assume her generalizations to be correct, do the “highly educated” have more of a right to wield their political power and influence than do “regular folks”?
Comment by J. DiCello — 4/21/2004 @ 7:12 pm
I very much enjoy Jill Stewart’s columns. Her point of view is thought-provoking and usually objective. However, when it comes to the California Correctional Peace Officer’s Association (CCPOA), the union representing California’s prison guards, her objectivity goes out the window.
For example, in her January 23, 2003 column, Stewart called the CCPOA “the most bizarre prison guards’ union in the nation.” Its members, Stewart added, were “freaks of history and circumstance, lightly trained men and women” who, “though their positions require only a GED,” wield enormous power.
Questioning the intelligence of CCPOA members seems to be one of Stewart’s favorite tactics. In a more recent column (4-21-2004), Stewart notes again that guards, who “require no more than a G.E.D. and simple training, fail to control gangs or raging drug use in certain prisons and practice a code of silence.”
Certainly Stewart is justified in questioning whether a labor union should wield so much power in Sacramento and in speculating about the guards’ ability to do their jobs, but she weakens her argument by resorting to name calling and insinuating that an entire class of people are stupid. Even if we assume her generalizations to be correct, do the “highly educated” have more of a right to wield their political power and influence than do “regular folks”?
Comment by J. DiCello — 4/21/2004 @ 7:12 pm
I very much enjoy Jill Stewart’s columns. Her point of view is thought-provoking and usually objective. However, when it comes to the California Correctional Peace Officer’s Association (CCPOA), the union representing California’s prison guards, her objectivity goes out the window.
For example, in her January 23, 2003 column, Stewart called the CCPOA “the most bizarre prison guards’ union in the nation.” Its members, Stewart added, were “freaks of history and circumstance, lightly trained men and women” who, “though their positions require only a GED,” wield enormous power.
Questioning the intelligence of CCPOA members seems to be one of Stewart’s favorite tactics. In a more recent column (4-21-2004), Stewart notes again that guards, who “require no more than a G.E.D. and simple training, fail to control gangs or raging drug use in certain prisons and practice a code of silence.”
Certainly Stewart is justified in questioning whether a labor union should wield so much power in Sacramento and in speculating about the guards’ ability to do their jobs, but she weakens her argument by resorting to name calling and insinuating that an entire class of people are stupid. Even if we assume her generalizations to be correct, do the “highly educated” have more of a right to wield their political power and influence than do “regular folks”?
Comment by J. DiCello — 4/21/2004 @ 7:12 pm