Los Angeles Times Ratchets Up Its Campaign of Distortion Against Justice Scalia
Apparently, the editors at the Los Angeles Times believe that using the word “apparently” in front of a factual assertion relieves them of the responsibility to back up that assertion with evidence.
The other day, I posted that the Times had recklessly accused Justice Antonin Scalia of issuing illegal orders to a deputy U.S. Marshal to confiscate and destroy audiotapes of a Scalia speech. Prefacing the accusation with the weasel word “apparently,” the story soon referred to “Scalia’s action” as if there were no question that he had ordered the deputy’s seizure of the tapes. Meanwhile, the U.S. Marshals Service has explicitly denied that Scalia gave these orders — a fact reported in the Washington Post on April 9, but which the Times to this day has failed to tell its readers.
I told you that I sent an e-mail to the paper on Saturday, April 10, noting the U.S. Marshals Service’s denial, and complaining that the Times’s accusation was reckless and unsupported. The editors are on notice of these facts.
And yet, the editors today run an editorial which — three times — squarely accuses Justice Scalia of directly issuing these orders. Following the example of the news story, the editorial initially prefaces the accusation with the word “apparently,” and then drops even that lame qualifier later in the piece:
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia lives in a place of such privilege that even his public statements may not be repeated. However, in apparently ordering a U.S. deputy marshal to confiscate and erase recordings made by two reporters invited to attend his speech to a high school crowd in Mississippi, he has gone too far.
. . . .
Once the reporters were invited by Scalia’s hosts, attended the speech and recorded it, there was more than a whiff of the jackboot in ordering federal police to grab the recordings.
. . . .
By imperiously ordering his federal law enforcement escort to seize reporters’ digital and tape recordings, he denigrates the U.S. marshals’ office, the students listening to him and the very U.S. Constitution he so copiously praises.
That the paper again prints these accusations, without informing readers of explicit facts to the contrary, sends a clear message to the paper’s readers: Facts be damned. You’ll swallow whatever we push on you, and think the way we want you to think.
Apparently, the newspaper’s editors have deliberately conspired to engage in a ideologically motivated campaign against Justice Scalia. Apparently, the editors have decided that distorting the facts is an acceptable tactic, as long as the goal of destroying Justice Scalia’s reputation is accomplished. Apparently, the editors have made a conscious decision to hide from their readers the inconvenient facts that don’t fit the view of Justice Scalia that they want to portray on their pages.
And, apparently, the editors do not care that their paper is increasingly viewed by rational readers as an utterly partisan rag — as long as they can use their unbridled power to accomplish whatever goals they have deemed important.
UPDATE: Via David Bernstein at the Volokh Conspiracy: Justice Scalia has written a letter to a representative of The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, indicating that: 1) the deputy’s U.S. Marshal’s actions were not taken at his direction; 2) he was upset about the deputy’s actions; 3) he never issues orders to security personnel (including U.S. Marshals) at the institutions where he speaks; 4) he is revising his policy to permit tape recording for the benefit of the print media; and 5) he has written the reporters involved, apologizing for the unauthorized behavior of the deputy marshal.
What a class act. As Prof. Bernstein says: “Good for him!” And, once again, shame on the L.A. Times for their partisan hack work on this whole affair.
So it would never happen, but isn’t this actionable libel?
According to the AP stylebook @2002, p358, “In order to successfully sue for libel, a public official must prove actual malice. This means that the public official must proce that the editor or reporter had knowledge that the facts were false or acted with reckless disregard of the truth.”
They were directly advised of this by you two days before the article was published. And it’s hard to believe that the LA Times doesn’t bother to read the Washington Post.
And weasel words like “allegedly” and “apparently” are useless in libel. I can’t say, “Apparently, [John Smith] uses drugs in his basement and has stolen from nearly every home on my block.” That’s libel. Apparently.
So, Scalia wouldn’t sue .. but, where do they get off?
Comment by bob — 4/12/2004 @ 7:11 am
The Lies of the LA Times.
Patterico Los Angeles Times Ratchets Up Its Campaign of Distortion Against Justice Scalia” href=”http://patterico.com/archives/002149.php”>nails the LA Times again….
Trackback by PrestoPundit -- Defining Liberalism for the 21st Century. — 4/12/2004 @ 7:38 am
Bob,
No, I don’t think it’s libel. Just incredibly poor journalism.
The main reason is that (as the first-tier organizations have reported) it’s unclear whether Scalia gave the orders or not. While the weight of evidence appears to indicate that he didn’t, there are indications to the contrary.
I’ll probably elaborate on these later, when I have more time. In a nutshell, a poorly written headline on the first AP story — a mistake by a copy editor due to a ambiguous lede sentence — probably got the canard started. Then, the local U.S. Marshal has kept it alive by saying that “as far as we are concerned” the deputy U.S. Marshal was following orders. In context, he is clearly not saying that Scalia issued the order — but that, in the deputy’s view, confiscating the tape was the only way to carry out Scalia’s standing orders (though, as I have shown, that is wrong).
So there is some (barely) colorable basis for saying that Scalia issued the orders. But the basis is incredibly weak — as illustrated by the fact that no other national newspaper has made the same leap that the Times has made. Other newspapers, like the NYT and Washington Post, are reporting that it’s unclear whether Scalia issued the orders or not. Even Bob Herbert is not claiming to know that Scalia issued these orders!
None of this excuses omitting the statement by the U.S. Marshals Service’s spokesman. The Times’s stubborn insistence on not printing that statement is incredibly unprofessional and totally inexcusable.
Comment by Patterico — 4/12/2004 @ 9:05 am
And another chapter in the Kerrey saga from Ron (Can you Tell I’m for Kerrey?) Brownfield: Kerrey is going to add tough military men to his campaign and Kerrey himself is going to work on rapprochement with our allies! See, he’s tough and he loves Old Europe.
Comment by PJ — 4/12/2004 @ 9:28 am
WASHINGTON POST - Friday, April 9, 2004; Page A02
Deputy Marshal Rube is based at the Marshals Services’ Hattiesburg sub-office, Turner said. She had been instructed to enforce Scalia’s policy during preparations for his visit, Turner added.
Anybody there? Helleewww…
Comment by john — 4/12/2004 @ 12:42 pm
WASHINGTON POST - Friday, April 9, 2004; Page A02
“Deputy Marshal Rube is based at the Marshals Services’ Hattiesburg sub-office, Turner said. She had been instructed to enforce Scalia’s policy during preparations for his visit, Turner added.”
Anybody there? Helleewww…
Comment by john — 4/12/2004 @ 12:42 pm
WASHINGTON POST - Friday, April 9, 2004; Page A02
“Deputy Marshal Rube is based at the Marshals Services’ Hattiesburg sub-office, Turner said. She had been instructed to enforce Scalia’s policy during preparations for his visit, Turner added.”
Anybody there? Helleewww…
Comment by john — 4/12/2004 @ 12:48 pm
WASHINGTON POST - Friday, April 9, 2004; Page A02
“Deputy Marshal Rube is based at the Marshals Services’ Hattiesburg sub-office, Turner said. She had been instructed to enforce Scalia’s policy during preparations for his visit, Turner added.”
Anybody there? Helleewww…
Comment by john — 4/12/2004 @ 12:53 pm
We’re here, dude. Calm down. The point I have made in a previous post is that there are different ways to enforce this policy, some of which are legally permissible. For example, you can ask people to shut the recorders off. You can ask them to leave if they refuse.
Asking the deputy to enforce the policy is not the same as ordering her to seize and destroy recordings.
Your quote does not even come close to showing that Justice Scalia ordered the deputy to *seize* and *erase* a reporter’s tape.
But perhaps your logical leap is the same one made by David Savage and the Times editors. If that is their basis for their oft-repeated accusations that Scalia (”apparently”) personally ordered the deputy’s particular actions, then I have one word: Pathetic.
And John: what say you regarding the failure of the L.A. Times to print an explicit denial of this accusation by a spokesman for the U.S. Marshals Service?
Comment by Patterico — 4/12/2004 @ 12:54 pm
WASHINGTON POST - Friday, April 9, 2004; Page A02
“Deputy Marshal Rube is based at the Marshals Services’ Hattiesburg sub-office, Turner said. She had been instructed to enforce Scalia’s policy during preparations for his visit, Turner added.”
Anybody there? Helleewww…
Comment by john — 4/12/2004 @ 12:56 pm
John:
Cut it out.
Comment by Patterico — 4/12/2004 @ 12:58 pm
WASHINGTON POST - Friday, April 9, 2004; Page A02
“Deputy Marshal Rube is based at the Marshals Services’ Hattiesburg sub-office, Turner said. She had been instructed to enforce Scalia’s policy during preparations for his visit, Turner added.”
Anybody there? Helleewww…
Comment by john — 4/12/2004 @ 1:08 pm
John:
Helleeeewwwwww!
I know the comments stick sometimes, but come on!
Catch a clue or I’m going to ban you. Last warning.
Comment by Patterico — 4/12/2004 @ 1:11 pm
Patterico,
Eh, if U.S. Marshal made a statement that could be interpreted broadly, I guess that just leaves me wondering where they get off.
John: I think the justice can reasonably expect that the U.S. Marshals would do their job within the boundaries of the law. Perhaps he can be held responsible for being on top of the totem pole, but that’s far different from saying that he called for the erasure.
Frankly, I’m far more concerned about another issue: the Secret Service’s insistence that protestors at public events maintain a greater distance from the president than his supporters.
After all, people’s ability to express their message is being limited by viewpoint. Yikes. Far different from not wanting to hear yourself on tape.
Comment by bob — 4/12/2004 @ 3:21 pm
Wow, when I went to J-school, it was made very clear that the word “apparently” was never to be used. Ever. And I worked at some papers in little podunk towns (the smallest had a circulation of around 30,000 at the time), and those papers would never have allowed it. So it’s interesting to me to see that kind of thing happening way up there on Mt. Olympus where the Gods of Journalism reign.
Comment by steve M. — 4/12/2004 @ 3:31 pm
Looks like CNN’s getting in on the action:
The front page headline for his article reads, “Scalia apologizes for erasing speech tapes” on the front page.
In the page, the headline is accurate. “Scalia apologizes for erasure of reporters’ recordings.”
That’s the sort of subtle crap that gets under the fingernails. Sure, it can probably be more accurately attributed to sensationalism than to bias, but isn’t it funny how it tilts?
Comment by bob — 4/12/2004 @ 4:11 pm
Powerline’s linking to your post - excellent work Patterico!
Comment by Frank G — 4/12/2004 @ 8:47 pm
You do make some decent points, but then again … oh, I don’t know … helleewww?
Comment by Xrlq — 4/12/2004 @ 11:34 pm
[…] I have warned you about the L.A. Times’s use of the word “apparently” before, saying: Apparently, the editors at the Los Angeles Times believe that using the word “apparently” in front of a factual assertion relieves them of the responsibility to back up that assertion with evidence. […]
Pingback by Patterico’s Pontifications » Apparently the L.A. Times Got It Wrong Again — 6/30/2005 @ 9:07 pm