Los Angeles Times Reporter Defends the Indefensible
This is a follow-up to my post yesterday, in which I noted that the Los Angeles Times had falsely claimed on its front page that Paul Bremer had failed to give a farewell speech to Iraq — and implied that this alleged failure was due to cowardice:
L. Paul Bremer III, the civilian administrator for Iraq, left without even giving a final speech to the country — almost as if he were afraid to look in the eye the people he had ruled for more than a year.
Although I rarely write the Reader’s Representative any more, having been frustrated too many times in the past with her usually stubborn refusal to acknowledge a mistake by the paper, I did write her about this one. My e-mail, sent yesterday, read as follows:
Your paper reports today in a front-page news analysis that Paul Bremer didn’t give a farewell speech. It then suggests that Bremer was afraid
to give such a speech.Better tell the folks at the San Francisco Chronicle. They quoted from the farewell speech the Times says Bremer didn’t give.
Better tell the Iraqi bloggers who thought they had seen a speech by Bremer — and were even moved by it.
Patrick Frey (aka Patterico)
http://patterico.com
I have not heard back from her; I will let you know when I do. However, I am not optimistic, based on the response that another blogger has received on the same issue.
Yesterday, another blogger on the East Coast published a similar post — albeit one far less restrained than mine. (Link via the Ranting Prof.) Jason Van Steenwyk’s entry, directed at the folks at the L.A. Times, began by saying, “Thank you very much for demonstrating what a clueless bunch of twits you are.” He ended his post with a single word: “Dumbasses.” (And you guys thought I get angry about this stuff!) In between, Jason made (independently, it appears) the same observations I had just made, noting the offending Times quote about Bremer’s supposed cowardice, the Iraqi blog post that appears to refute that quote, etc. Read his post; it is entertainingly unconstrained in its vitriol.
Jason apparently did something I used to do when I got angry about a Times article: he e-mailed the reporter directly. (I stopped doing this, mainly because the reporters usually did not respond to me. The “Reader’s Representative” may take weeks to respond, but she will respond. Also, I like for the Reader’s Rep to read my evidence before the reporter gets a chance to inject his or her spin on that evidence. But I understand Jason’s desire to stick the mistake directly in the reporter’s face.)
Anyway, Jason has already heard back from the reporter — and just look at the disingenuous drivel that reporter included in her response e-mail. If any of you were wondering how a newspaper can defend a statement that Bremer “left without even giving a final speech to the country” when, in fact, he did give a final speech to the country . . . well, wonder no more. Here are the relevant quotes from the reporter’s e-mail to Jason:
On the day he [Bremer] left and the day or two before that when I
accompanied him on trips, he gave no farewell speech of the kind that one might give on the day or two before leaving.. . . .
Western reporters who follow Amb. Bremer would have been delighted to cover an event billed as a farewell to Iraq. However, I will gladly look at the material you have forwarded me and if indeed I should have included a qualification I will discuss doing so with my desk.
If she would have been so “delighted” to cover such an address, one wonders why she did not. As I point out above, other Western reporters did.
So: it appears that the paper is going to defend itself on two ridiculous grounds:
- Bremer gave no address “of the kind that one might give on the day or two before leaving”; and
- Bremer didn’t give an address “billed as a farewell to Iraq.”
Of course, these qualifications were not present in the offending front-page quote. It’s sophistry — which tells you something about the paper’s commitment to accuracy above all else.
This is not encouraging. However, keep in mind that this is not the paper’s institutional response; it is a preliminary response from one reporter. I’ll let you know when I hear more.
UPDATE: A commenter at “Oh, That Liberal Media” says the Reader’s Rep is on vacation, so I have forwarded the e-mail to the reporter (Alissa Rubin) and editor John Carroll.
Man, that paper is dangerous! The mantle of whistle-blower is not popular,nor appreciated until the truth uncovered reaches critical mass.
Keep it up Don Patterico el Guapo Delgado!
Comment by Hugo — 7/5/2004 @ 2:47 pm
If I may: When attempting to address a member of the news media, mostly Liberal, do so with a measure of civility and maturity. Doing so, I have found, unnerves them because the element of emotion they so crave and lust after is superficially absent, and you can get the upperhand when following up.
Comment by James C. Hess — 7/5/2004 @ 4:56 pm
I’m not sure to whom you’re addressing that comment, James — Jason or myself.
If you were addressing Jason, then you should let him know on his blog. I’ll admit that, while I was amused by Jason’s tone, I wouldn’t have written the paper using that sort of language. I think it would discredit me to do so. (Indeed, I don’t know whether Jason used that language in his direct communications with the paper either. I’m guessing that he probably didn’t. The language I quote is from a post of his, which purports to address the paper, but which he doesn’t clearly say mirrors the language of his e-mail to the paper.)
If you’re addressing me, James, I appreciate the thought, and generally agree with the sentiment. However, even upon reflection, I feel I was perfectly polite enough, under the circumstances. I was certainly not *insulting* — which the paper was to Bremer. I was, at worst, mildly sarcastic, which I think was merited.
Comment by Patterico — 7/5/2004 @ 5:53 pm
Fact-checking the Times
Times watcher Patterico has been making a case that the L.A. Times erred when it reported last week on the front page that Paul Bremer left Iraq without giving a farewell address. As Patterico notes, the San Francisco Chronicle reported…
Trackback by L.A. Observed — 7/6/2004 @ 1:04 am
Here are some other corrections of note from the LA Times.
Uninsured Americans — An article in Monday’s Health section about couples who marry to obtain health benefits said an estimated 44% of Americans lack health insurance. The portion of Americans without such coverage is 15%.
Cassini spacecraft — A headline on an index summary in some editions of Thursday’s Page A1 said “NASA Spacecraft Cassini Orbits Jupiter.” The spacecraft is orbiting Saturn.
Mortgage interest — The Money Talk column in the June 20 Business section incorrectly said prepaying a mortgage would not save any interest over a three- to four-year period. Payments toward the principal of a mortgage will reduce the interest paid during that time.
Thursday, July 1, 2004
FOR THE RECORD
Actress’ baby — A Quick Takes item in Wednesday’s Calendar section said actress Helena Bonham Carter gave birth Saturday to a boy fathered by director Tim Burton. The child was born Oct. 4.
Comment by Tom — 7/6/2004 @ 1:55 pm
Not a shameless plug.
I have been keeping track of news org contacts using the great and wonderful whack jobs at DU. (they sure love to whine at what they call the right wing media) So I have a very log list of ways to contact lots of them, feel free to use, copy, post or whatever.
http://mindlessness.blogspot.com/2004_04_11_mindlessness_archive.html
Comment by Mike7411 — 7/6/2004 @ 2:57 pm
The LA Times?!
The *Pulitzer Prize Winning* LA Times?!
But how could this be?
They won a **Pulitzer**. Lots and lots of them.
Surely they are not totally full of shit lying vicious partisan snakes who deserve to be flushed from their holes with a hose?
Surely the Pulitzer people are not equally sophisticated (in the classical Greek sense)backscratchers who are now about as respect worthy as the Nobel committee?
Comment by Sergio — 7/6/2004 @ 3:09 pm
But now that I’ve read Tom’s comment on other recent LA Times corrections I realize I gave them way, way too much credit. They’re too careless to be effective partisans. But they’ve got all those Pulitzers.
That’s it! They’ve been too busy polishing and straightening their awards to have time for basic factchecking.
Comment by Sergio — 7/6/2004 @ 3:14 pm
Since Mr. Bremer did not relieve himself in the (female) reporter’s presence during those last two days, should we assume that he was constipated or suffers from kidney failure?
Comment by Don Eyres — 7/6/2004 @ 3:58 pm
Congrats on the instalink!
Comment by Director Mitch — 7/6/2004 @ 8:10 pm
I understand you probably have your own good reasons not to post the Alyssa Rubin’s email address, and Jason didn’t post it either, but my own hunt for it has come up dry. I’d sure like to drop her a line to express my unhappiness over her gratuitous slur against Bremer, a final swipe against a man she says she’s covered “sympathetically.” What a laugh.
Comment by Tom B — 7/7/2004 @ 12:19 am
bias or mistakes?
another shining example of media carelessness? nope, actually, its another shining example of media bias. the los angeles times ran a piece about paul bremer leaving iraq without a farewell speech. this article ran on the front page of their…
Trackback by [ me and my monkey ] — 7/7/2004 @ 3:38 am
bias or mistakes?
another shining example of media carelessness? nope, actually, its another shining example of media bias. the los angeles times ran a piece about paul bremer leaving iraq without a farewell speech. this article ran on the front page of their…
Trackback by [ me and my monkey ] — 7/7/2004 @ 3:48 am
first off, i apologize for my dual trackback ping. please delete one of them.
i want to thank you for your post on this topic. i have been getting so frustrated with news outlets “inaccuracies”. from both sides. its getting kind of silly.
hey tom, her email address is on the LAtimes web page.
Comment by tony — 7/7/2004 @ 4:01 am
This is idiotic, biased Times-bashing. Here’s what the article (entitled, “Premier Gets Off to a Strong Start” — sound like more Bush-bashing to me) actually says:
“L. Paul Bremer, III, the civillian administrator for Iraq, left without giving a FINAL speech to the country…”
This is a clear and obvious reference to the farewell speech he’d given a week earlier, wherein he spoke for a couple of minutes, answered two questions, and then scurried off.
Facts, details, and the like are essential if one is going to be critical, so learn to think critically. It’s hard, but it’ll be fun and worthwhile in the long run.
And if you get good at it, you’ll actually find yourself becoming more liberal.
Eddie
Comment by Coastal Eddie — 7/7/2004 @ 9:54 am
Thanks Tony — With a more concerted effort I navigated my way to where the email addresses are. Ms. Rubin has now been courteously informed of my views.
Comment by Tom B — 7/7/2004 @ 10:01 am
Coastal Eddie,
You’re spinning like a top. If you offered more evidence and fewer insults, I’d be more impressed.
Even if your facts are true — and I have seen nothing to suggest that they are — your interpretation of the article based on those facts is Clintonesque, to put it kindly.
I won’t sink to your level and call your comment “idiotic” — but it is far from convincing.
Comment by Patterico — 7/7/2004 @ 10:42 am
Coastal Eddie — Bremer did give a “FINAL” speech. By definition the last speech he gave was the final one. So your semantical game is nonsense.
Bremer gave a televised FAREWELL speech that was widely admired and well received by the Iraqi people themselves.
Now it’s a crying shame Ms. Rubin was not sent an engraved invitation to the speech and so missed it. But Bremer gave it, and when he did, contra Ms. Rubin’s gratuitous slur, you can be sure he looked the Iraqi people right in the eye.
It’s not Bremer’s fault that LA Times staffers need remedial classwork in fact checking.
Comment by Tom B — 7/7/2004 @ 10:57 am
coastal eddie,
critical thinking is exactly what is missing in the media today.
eddie, when you were a kid, did you ever play that game where you match up shapes with the appropriate holes? these lazy journalists are trying to force the star shape into a circle hole. when the facts don’t fit their ideologue views of the world, they hack off the points of the star attempting to make it a circle.
we can not have an ethical press that frames stories in this way. liberal or conservative, we need the truth. framing to this degree is dangerous.
and to assert that conservatives are not critical thinkers… i hope you are only baiting everyone. if you are not baiting and you really believe that, you might be a little too wrapped up in your ideology. are you attempting to force the world into your belief system?
if so, i urge you to take a good hard look at the real world and then take a long look at your beliefs. hopefully you (and someday news editors) will realize this fact: if you have to lie, mislead, or leave facts out, your beliefs need a more solid foundation.
Comment by tony — 7/7/2004 @ 11:38 am
Postal Eddie’s pearls of wisdom got me to thinking: have you ever noticed how quick liberals are to jump to the defense of the allegedly non-liberal media whenever it is attacked?
Comment by Xrlq — 7/7/2004 @ 6:36 pm
The mysterious Bremer farewell speech
I’ll admit it; I’m hooked on the Case of the Mysterious Bremer Farewell Speech. You know, the one that maybe happened as he left Iraq. Did he give it, or didn’t he? It’s fascinating (to me, at least). Here’s all the pieces I can find as I re-live my Ha…
Trackback by The Dead Parrot Society — 7/7/2004 @ 9:27 pm
Case closed on Bremer speech
The case of the mysterious Bremer farewell speech is closed, at least as far as I’m concerned. Shortened version: Bremer did not deliver a live speech between the time of the handover ceremony and the time he left Iraq; instead he pre-taped a speech an…
Trackback by The Dead Parrot Society — 7/8/2004 @ 11:31 am