Readers’ Representative Responds Regarding the “White Men” White-Out
The L.A. Times‘s Readers’ Representative has responded regarding that white-out of the word “white” from the phrase “white men” in an article about Bush’s search for a Supreme Court nominee. Bottom line: she claims that it wasn’t a mistake — but has no answer yet on why it did happen.
(If you’re unfamiliar with the story, read my original post on the subject. Briefly, The Times claimed that Bush was considering only “white men” to replace William Rehnquist, and shifted gears to consider minorities like Alberto Gonzales only after Justice O’Connor announced her retirement. This version of events has been contradicted by numerous sources. When the paper put the article on the Internet, the word “white” was quietly removed. There has been no admission of error and no correction.)
The Readers’ Representative states:
Apparently the reference as you saw it in the early edition of the L.A. Times was how the reporter wrote it and intended for it to run. He included the names to support his point. Somewhere in the editing process, the names were dropped — then the “white men” reference — but it was not taken out because it was wrong. (By his reporting, the finalists were Judges Luttig, Robertson [this is probably a reference to John Roberts — P.], Wilkinson and McConnell, all white men.)
I’m still trying to track down the reason as to why it was edited, but changes are often made between editions. This reference doesn’t seem to have been wrong as it appeared in either early or later editions, though.
Hope this helps.
Jamie Gold
Readers’ Representative
Of course, whether the reference was wrong depends upon whether Bush was indeed seeking only “white men” for the Supreme Court before O’Connor’s retirement. And that, in turn, depends upon whom you believe:
1) David Savage, who makes that claim without presenting any sources (even anonymous sources) to support it; or
2) The numerous sources I cited in my original post, including the Washington Post, the Chicago Tribune, the AP, Bill Kristol, and others — many of which cited sources close to the White House as saying that Alberto Gonzales was a top contender.
Savage’s reporting has been at odds with that of the Washington Post before. For example, Savage once claimed that Antonin Scalia had “apparently” ordered a U.S. Marshal to seize and destroy two journalists’ audiotapes of one of his speeches. At the same time, the Washington Post quoted a spokesman for the U.S. Marshal’s Service, who said that Scalia had not issued the order.
David Savage never bothered to talk to the spokesman quoted by the Post. (Indeed, nobody at the L.A. Times ever bothered to contact the spokesman — even after I told them about the spokesman’s statement to the Washington Post.) As evidenced by Savage’s use of the word “apparently,” he and his editors were “apparently” content to rely on mere supposition to slander a conservative Supreme Court Justice.
Guess what? Savage turned out to be dead wrong. And the Washington Post‘s sourced report turned out to be correct. (Not that Savage ever admitted error in that story, or in any of the other stories where he has gotten facts wrong, such as the ones described here and here, for example.)
So you’ll pardon me if I credit the sourced reporting of the Washington Post (and several other outlets) in this case, over unsourced reporting by David Savage that happens to favor a leftist perspective.
And I’m still waiting to hear just exactly why the editors did remove the supposedly correct word “white” from the online edition. We know it wasn’t because they thought it was wrong (even though it was). So what was the reason? Was that word taking up too much space?
You devil, you. Raking them over the Washington Post coals. BTW, this blog seems excellent. I would think they would almost be happy to have it. It does emphasize the paper at least. I mean…instead of the SD U-T or the OC paper. And it seems pretty measured, high quality. Would think Kinsley or whatever would give you some props and you all could have a few cervaczas and try to catch a green flash at the shore some night…gawd I miss Cali…and so does my longboard.
TCO (3c2924) — 7/18/2005 @ 9:39 pmHere’s the excuse I got forked over. Does this even vaguely make sense? Of course not.
To: “‘John Stuart'”
CC:
Subject: RE: L.A. Times Airbrushes Web Version of Article to Fix a Substantive Error Without Issuing Correction
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 16:39:21 -0700
Thanks for your note.
Editing changes are often made between editions; the earliest version
had the reference you saw, and the reporter had the names that
supported that. But in this case, neither the earlier version nor the
later version was wrong.
If articles get fixed during the run, so that different editions have
different versions, a correction will run that says “some editions of
the Times,” so that readers of the earliest editions get the
corrected information. But that wasn’t necessary in this case.
Jamie Gold
J. Stuart (fdd379) — 7/19/2005 @ 6:37 amReaders’ Representative
Like I say, we’re still waiting to see why it was changed at all. Removing one word like that certainly does seem like an odd change to make if you don’t think it was wrong.
Patterico (756436) — 7/19/2005 @ 6:43 amOr how about this:
1) The brave LA Times lead by David Savage publishes in its early editions that the evil White House is only going to select evil white males for the Supreme Court.
2) 15 minutes later the White House, cowed with its secret exposed changes gears quickly, selecting some good and trustworthy minorities in the span of 10 more minutes.
3) The LA Times, in joyful jubiltation, “stops the presses” and makes the change. Hurrah!
Or perhaps, just maybe they just flat out forgot about Gonzalez and Savage is a lousy reporter.
J. Stuart (fdd379) — 7/19/2005 @ 6:55 amCould you comment on your general relationship with the paper? Or point to some relevant posts that discuss this?
TCO (dc7251) — 7/19/2005 @ 7:24 amI find their response inadequate, too.
They tried to do a rowback, and you caught it. The ethics code of the Society of Professional Journalists requires an acknowledgment of the error. A rowback won’t cut it.
Doc (e59775) — 7/19/2005 @ 8:42 amTo: Patterico
Linc (491ea9) — 7/19/2005 @ 11:47 amRe’Your relationship to the LAT.(in answer to commenter#5 above)
As I mentioned in my other post to your site; Buffy : vampires.
Seriously,I read your posts with the sort of fascination I associate with impending train wrecks.Can they actually be that inept?If my employer/professional efforts were becoming a documented clown show,I’d move heaven and earth to fix it.And yet the fun just keeps on comin’.
he seems pretty temperate and has some good content. Some decent fraction of his stuff is not even contestable (and some is). Plus he is putting attention on the product. I could see how they might not hate him.
TCO (dc7251) — 7/19/2005 @ 12:07 pmCould you comment on your general relationship with the paper? Or point to some relevant posts that discuss this?
Do you mean, do I hate them? No. They have a lot of good people trying hard to do a good job, and a lot of people who just can’t see past their leftist bias.
Do you mean, do they they hate me? I have no idea. My main dealings are with the Readers’ Representative. I am not always satisfied with her responses (sometimes I am), but she is always unfailingly polite to me — and I try to be polite to her (I think I succeed).
I have no idea whether I am on anyone else’s radar. I did do an opinion piece on their pages that was critical of them; I was invited to do that by the Sunday Opinion Editor. I was later told that my piece had a mixed reception.
I don’t know if that answers your question or not.
My criticisms are sometimes harsh, but I am certainly not looking to antagonize anyone simply for the sake of doing so. Hopefully that is understood.
Maybe someone who works there and reads the site (come on, you can admit it! I know there are one or two of you) can weigh in.
Patterico (5cb3be) — 7/19/2005 @ 12:35 pm