Comments on: Readers’ Representative Responds Regarding the “White Men” White-Out

By: Patterico

Patterico — Tue, 19 Jul 2005 19:35:36 +0000

Could 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.

By: TCO

TCO — Tue, 19 Jul 2005 19:07:17 +0000

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.

By: Linc

Linc — Tue, 19 Jul 2005 18:47:18 +0000

To: Patterico
Re’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’.

By: Doc

Doc — Tue, 19 Jul 2005 15:42:18 +0000

I 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.

By: TCO

TCO — Tue, 19 Jul 2005 14:24:14 +0000

Could you comment on your general relationship with the paper? Or point to some relevant posts that discuss this?

By: J. Stuart

J. Stuart — Tue, 19 Jul 2005 13:55:01 +0000

Or 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.

By: Patterico

Patterico — Tue, 19 Jul 2005 13:43:45 +0000

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.

By: J. Stuart

J. Stuart — Tue, 19 Jul 2005 13:37:25 +0000

Here’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
Readers’ Representative

By: TCO

TCO — Tue, 19 Jul 2005 04:39:01 +0000

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.