Michael Kinsley’s official start date as L.A. Times editorial and opinion editor was yesterday, so I guess this question is for him. I have e-mailed the following to him. I’ll let you know if he responds.

Mr. Kinsley:

What are the rules for revealing conflicts of interest and other biases in the biographical statement of the author of an op-ed piece in the L.A. Times?

Today, your paper ran an op-ed by Erwin Chemerinsky decrying the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to deny standing to Michael Newdow in the Pledge of Allegiance case. Professor Chemerinsky’s biographical statement at the end of the piece was simple, straightforward, and unrevealing:

Erwin Chemerinsky is a professor of law and political science at USC.

You left out one not-so-minor point: Chemerinsky was also an advisor to Newdow during the pendency of Newdow’s appeal to the Supreme Court.

For example, see this law.com article, which describes Chemerinsky as a “Newdow adviser who had substantial input into Newdow’s brief.” Funny, I didn’t see that mentioned in Prof. Chemerinsky’s biographical statement.

I know there are people at your paper who know this. For example, this link contains an excerpt from a March 23, 2004 story by L.A. Times reporter Maura Dolan, who said that Chemerinsky “has been coaching Newdow” and had sent at least one e-mail to Newdow criticizing one his briefs. That story quoted Chemerinsky as saying: “What I have tried to do is encourage [Newdow] to focus on the issues that are before the Supreme Court.”

Contrast Chemerinsky’s neutral-sounding biographical statement on this liberal-leaning op-ed with the biographical statement for law professor Jonathan Turley, when he wrote a controversial op-ed that took the conservative side in an abortion controversy. Turley’s op-ed supported the homicide prosecution of a Salt Lake City woman who had refused a cesarean section that was necessary to save the lives of her unborn twins. One of the twins died as a direct result. Here’s how Turley’s biographical statement read at the end of his L.A. Times op-ed:

Jonathan Turley is a law professor at George Washington Law School and drafted the Florida parental notice amendment.

(Emphasis mine.)

Apparently, the statement didn’t read this way at Turley’s insistence, since the biographical statement for the identical article on Jewish World Review said nothing about Turley’s work on the Florida parental notice amendment.

And why should it have? Turley’s op-ed had absolutely nothing to do with parental notification law. But I guess your paper felt it was important for readers to know that Turley, though pro-choice, is not a 100% party-line supporter of the completely unfettered right of any female of any age to terminate any pregnancy for any (or no) reason.

Here’s the way your paper’s policy looks to me:

• Op-ed taking conservative position: disclose irrelevant work on tangentially related subject matter.

• Op-ed taking liberal position: fail to disclose direct involvement on the very case that is the subject of the op-ed.

I know you weren’t in charge when Turley’s op-ed ran, but you can tell me whether you think Turley’s or Chemerinsky’s biographical statement was mishandled — or that you think they were both handled correctly. (If that’s your position, I’ll be amused to see you try to justify it.)

Am I wrong here? What gives? Does your op-ed page have a rule mandating the disclosure of the biases and conflicts of interest of your op-ed contributors, or not?

Or do you have a rule that applies only when the contributor is making an argument that the paper’s editors don’t like?

I would appreciate a response to this question.

– Patrick Frey

P.S. In the original version of this post (and therefore in my e-mail to Kinsley) I used the term “byline” to refer to the short biographical statement at the end of an op-ed. A commenter questions whether this is the proper term, and I realized that, as a non-insider, I don’t know the answer. Rather than continue to use a possibly improper term, I have edited the post to refer to a “biographical statement.” It’s a little more clumsy, but may be more accurate. If anyone knows the correct term for this statement, let me know in the comments.