Over the weekend, I posted on two egregious L.A. Times distortions: Tim Rutten’s distortion of Dick Cheney’s CPAC speech, and a story on overcrowded ERs that didn’t mention illegal immigration.

Several readers have written the newspaper with responses to these articles, and copied me on the e-mails. Most (if not all) of their responses will never be printed in the newspaper, and of course the Readers’ Rep blog doesn’t allow critical comments. These readers will not be heard unless I publish their complaints here. I think they deserve to be heard, so here are the best of the missives I received. Click “more” to read them.

First, we have several reactions to Tim Rutten lying about Vice President Cheney’s remarks at CPAC (Rutten claimed Cheney had said he was glad the U.S. has tortured people, when Cheney said the exact opposite). My personal favorite was from Kevin Rush, who sent this to Rutten:

Dear Mr. Rutten:

I am no fan of Dick Cheney, but I am an American and I do value truth. The way you manipulated the Mr. Cheney’s words, stripped them of their original context and supplied your own in order to libel him is disgraceful.

I’ve seen enough “Bush Lied, People Died,” bumper stickers to understand, if I had not already, the consequences of perceived dishonesty. It erodes national confidence and undermines America’s standing in the world.

But what about outright dishonesty by the news media? One could argue that given the media’s watchdog role, dishonesty such as yours also kills. It mires our political discourse in invective, prevents an honest exchange on the issues, and eliminates all possibility of reform.

You, sir, are a disgrace to the proud journalistic tradition in this country which exposed wrongdoings and brought them to the light of truth. You have eliminated truth as an element of journalism, eroded the public trust in the fourth estate, and left the public to fend for themselves amidst a constant storm of angry accusations with no basis in fact. You have sewn confusion. You have stabbed your fellow Americans in the back.

Rutten lied, the truth died.

Sincerely,

Kevin Rush
Los Angeles

Jay Sims wrote this firm but polite missive:

Dear Mr. Rutten,

I think it is clear that your position on water-boarding is that it is torture. I think it is also clear that Dick Cheney does not feel the same way. I can respect both positions. The problem is that you lack intellectual honesty. Cheney did not say that he supports torture at CPAC. If your argument is strong and valid, why not make it honestly? The fact that you needed to lie about what Cheney said points to a weak base for your argument.

Sincerely,

Jay Sims

Ross Kennedy was a little harsher:

Tim Rutten’s opinion piece, “Bush’s Message for McCain”, is a disgraceful broadside from the SS Times. You see, here in the heartland of America, what you would likely term “Flyover Country”, we have a special understanding of the difficult choices our administration has made in prosecuting the war we are engaged in. Do not be mistaken – we are in a fight for our nation’s very survival, and too often, it appears that our journalistic elite have chosen to support the murdering terrorist scum. Consider this outright lie in Rutten’s opinion piece:

Meanwhile, in another part of the city, Vice President Dick Cheney was addressing the meat-eaters at the Conservative Political Action Conference. He told them that he was glad the administration had tortured people and that he’d do it again: “Would I support those same decisions again today? You’re damn right I would.”

This would be a deeply troubling thought, excepting the little issue that Vice President Cheney DID NOT SAY anything to that effect. The vice president is not some awful man reaping pleasure in others’ pain. He is a man charged with a great and terrible burden…namely, protecting each American, grateful (me) or otherwise (Rutten), from the scourge of radical terrorism. I understand that opinion pieces are by and large unregulated by any sort of code of integrity or impartiality, but Rutten is outright lying. It’s possible that at the LA Times that sort of thing is obliged, or downright encouraged, but in the rest of the world, where integrity matters, it’s an odious and ridiculous breach of public trust. Rutten is beyond a partisan hack, and continues his relentless abuse of the very civil liberties this administration has sworn to uphold and defend.

Dare I say that this type of groupthink is common at your bastion of integrity, morality and brave dissent? Or is morality mutually exclusive to journalism? Does Rutten view politics as a zero-sum game, whereby he must overcome the oppressors of the Chimpy McBushitler regime, using only the might of his mind and pen? Or could it be that perhaps he has taken for granted the shield of freedoms protecting him from the boogeymen of the world? America’s enemies are real, and they are not the Bush Administration, regardless of Rutten’s obvious hatred for Vice President Cheney. Rutten needs some perspective; perhaps, someday America will welcome its oppressors, and Rutten will get his taste of the judgment imposed on free speech by most of the rest of the world. Until then, he is an intellectual and moral coward, obfuscating the truth because he is too mentally feeble to deal with reality.

Sincerely,

Ross Kennedy

Harsh but fair. And the harshness continues with Arnie Behnke:

Tim Rutten may be a valued columnist at the LA Fishwrapper (times). But as a journalist and reporter he is pitiful.

If he wants to make up lies and falsify meetings and speeches that are on public record, the least he could do is mention that he is merely using his swami cap, and trying to “read into” Vice-President Cheney’s remarks, what VP Cheney was really saying between the lines.

Any idiot who was in attendance at the CPAC meetings should be able to get the quotes right. Even a buffoon like Mr. Rutten should be able to get the transcripts at no personal expense. Then all he has to do is read the transcripts to get the quotes correct. Oops, I forgot, being able to read is not necessarily a job requirement at the Times. Then the columnists would actually have to proofread the manure they write. Then, you know, check for accuracy, corroboration…. All those ethical things a good journalist does. Ooops, I bad. Being a good journalist is definitely not a job requirement at the Times, now is it??????

ABehnke
NL Wisconsin

And you thought I was harsh.

Nicely said. Meanwhile, a couple of readers responded to the paper’s article about overcrowded emergency rooms, that completely failed to mention illegal immigration as one of the causes of the problem. Howard Veit wrote:

I don’t pretend to be a daily reader of your paper, and this “story” is [a good example of] why. My son-in-law is a physician and has to put in two days a month in an emergency hospital. For two years I’ve been hearing about the flood of totally ILLEGAL alien patients who can’t tell anyone what is wrong with them because they can’t speak English (or pretend they can’t), who become aggressive at the drop of a hat, demand services that go far beyond standard emergency room care, and many of whom mysteriously file lawsuits a month or so after they are released. THIS is the main cause of “overcrowding.” MAIN CAUSE, not just a little footnoted minor factor.

I’d also add here, knowing you don’t give a damn for the truth, that health insurance has been available to Mexicans from an insurance company in Mexico for a very low price (this is two year old news and may not apply today). But here’s the rub: the Mexicans don’t want to take the insurance because emergency rooms are available for free. Social workers, nurses, and one presumes even reporters, have been aware of this for several years.

Keep up the bad work and may your circulation drop ever further into the abyss.

Howard Veit
Los Angeles, CA

And Dana Strunk wrote:

Editors,

When the Los Angeles Times presumes to publish an article examining the overcrowding of emergency rooms and the dangers therein posed to patients, it is nothing less than disingenuous to not include the most obvious reason for the situation – that of illegal immigrants using emergency rooms as their primary source of care. Illegal immigrants are typically uninsured and when they use the ER’s in extraordinary numbers, which they do, tax payers end up footing the bill and the bill in California is topping $700 million dollars per year, according to the California Hospital Association in Sacramento.

Its mind-boggling that private citizens can research this subject, find out the number of uninsured illegal immigrants using the ER on a regular basis and even the dollar amount its costing taxpayers, and yet a major newspaper like the Los Angeles Times doesn’t seem to be able to.

We live in Southern California. We know better. And we know you are not being honest. Readers deserve an objective truth presenting all the reasons for the prolific overcrowding of our emergency rooms. To not include the ‘elephant in the room’ makes me embarrassed for the LATs and the permissible level of shoddy journalism. If you don’t have the mettle and professionalism to deliver a full, non-biased truth, then you’re in the wrong business.

Dana Strunk
Redlands, CA

Thanks for the feedback.