I have heard back from L.A. Times “Reader’s Representative” Jamie Gold regarding the paper’s continuing refusal to print contradictory statements by Bob Mintz, the principal spokesman for the anti-Bush “Texans for Truth” organization. (For background, read this post, which sets forth my original e-mail to Ms. Gold, and this post, which sets forth my follow-up e-mail.)

Although I am reluctant to get drawn into a debate with a newspaper’s ombudsman, I felt the need to respond, as I believe Ms. Gold’s response mischaracterized my arguments.

Here is the text of her e-mail to me:

Dear Mr. Frey,

I take it you are referring to the long article on Bush’s record in the Texas Air National Guard that ran yesterday; its only reference to Mintz was to report that he “appeared in an anti-Bush television ad by a group called Texans for Truth.” That’s the extent of the reference. I’ll let editors here know that if you were the editor, you would have devoted space to exploring Mintz’s background, but the story was focused on something else — Bush, the president and the candidate; and his record. It wasn’t a story about Texans for Truth.

Your initial note last week raise a valid question about Mintz’s claim, but editors are not inclined to commission a story based on a CBS report. For one thing, this is not a point that can be proved, or disproved. It’s essentially one man’s opinion. If the Times is going to scrutinize Mintz’s claim, the paper would be remiss in not also addressing the larger question about Bush and his whereabouts — which was the point of yesterday’s article.

As you note, Mintz was among several people interviewed for yesterday’s piece. Regardless of whether you agree with his perspective about Bush, the White House and Bush campaign are not disputing the president’s absence from duty in Alabama in 1972. In fact, when asked about this issue, they deflect the question by focusing on the end result: Bush was honorably discharged.

Regarding the Times coverage of Texans for Truth and Bob Mintz:

– The Times has published two stories about the group this month. Four others (five, including yesterday’s) made passing reference to the group, the ad, or quote their spokesman Glenn Smith.
– The Times has not vetted Mintz’s assertion in the ad that “It would be impossible to be unseen in a unit of that size” (a reference to Bush’s whereabouts while serving in the Alabama Air National Guard). The Times doesn’t, as a practice, write an adwatch on all the political ads that are airing. Given the paper’s limited resources (one reporter assigned to advertising) and the barrage of ads out there, they can’t all be reviewed.

I think part of your question lies with the fact that the Times ran a lengthy piece last month about the Swift Boat ads (along with numerous news stories about the ads). The editors viewed that as an important story, given the extensive debate those ads inspired in the presidential campaign (based in part on the book and the ongoing interviews by SBVFT representatives). Also, the nature of those statements and allegations about Kerry were unusually personal and involved specific events, making it plausible for editors to try and address them on a more factual basis.

Thanks for the correspondence on this, which I have brought to editors’ attention.

Jamie Gold
Readers’ Representative

I responded:

Ms. Gold,

Thank you for your reply.

My complaint is not, and has not been, that The Times failed to “commission a story” based upon Mintz’s previous statement, or that The Times has not “devoted space to exploring Mintz’s background,” or that the paper does not run an “adwatch” on “all political ads that are airing.” If you look at my previous e-mails, you will search in vain for such language.

My complaint has been simple and consistent: The Times has not even mentioned Mintz’s previous statement.

L.A. Times editors thought the Texans for Truth commercial, and Mintz’s claims therein, were worth a front-page news analysis by Ron Brownstein. The editors thought the commercial was worth mentioning in several subsequent stories. You agree that Mintz has made a statement that raises a valid question about his claims in the commercial. Yet that statement has not been mentioned in the paper — not even in passing.

This would not require a whole story, or even a section of a story devoted to Mintz’s background, as you suggest. It could be done in a single sentence, in 20 words or less: “Mintz admits that he cannot definitively say that Bush was not there or that Bush did not do his duty.”

In my opinion, there is no legitimate justification for the paper’s failure to include such a simple and short statement in one of the numerous L.A. Times stories that discussed Mintz’s allegations in the Texans for Truth commercial.

If an allegation is important enough to mention, so are facts tending to show that the allegation is not true.

Sincerely,

Patrick Frey

To me, that last sentence is beyond rational debate — and fits these facts perfectly. Why is this so difficult?