Patterico's Pontifications

12/19/2008

L.A. Times Corrects That Misstatement on the Auto Industry Bailout

Filed under: Dog Trainer — Patterico @ 11:41 pm

On Saturday I sent this e-mail to the L.A. Times Readers’ Representative:

Jamie,

The L.A. Times‘s December 12 story on the bailout, titled Senate Republicans kill auto bailout bill, strongly implied that Democrats did not have 10 Republican votes to kill a filibuster:

Republican opposition killed a $14-billion auto industry bailout plan in the Senate on Thursday night, putting the future of U.S. automakers in doubt and threatening to deliver another blow to the economy.

. . . .

Senate Democrats couldn’t bring the measure up for a vote without the support of at least 10 Republicans. Ultimately, they were seven votes short.

But there were 10 Republicans voting “yea” on the bill. Here’s the link to the vote, and here are the 10 Republicans who voted “yea”:

Bond (R-MO), Yea
Brownback (R-KS), Yea
Collins (R-ME), Yea
Dole (R-NC), Yea
Domenici (R-NM), Yea
Lugar (R-IN), Yea
Snowe (R-ME), Yea
Specter (R-PA), Yea
Voinovich (R-OH), Yea
Warner (R-VA), Yea

I think your paper’s story was misleading, and that some sort of clarification is in order.

Yours truly,

Patrick Frey

http://patterico.com

Today the paper runs this correction:

Auto bailout: An article in Section A on Dec. 12 about the auto bailout bill dying in the Senate said that Democrats, who hold 50 votes in the chamber, couldn’t bring the measure up for a vote without the support of at least 10 Republicans. In fact, 10 Republicans did vote to bring the measure up, but not all 50 Democrats did. The final vote was 52 to 35, with 10 Republicans joining 40 Democrats and 2 independents in favor.

All they had to do was show just a little skepticism for the Democrats’ spin, and this could have been avoided.

Amazing, too, how this correction goes in a small box on page A2, even though it undermines a central point of the story. Amazing . . . but par for the course.

23 Responses to “L.A. Times Corrects That Misstatement on the Auto Industry Bailout”

  1. Good job on getting them to issue a correction.

    But it isn’t amazing at all how the correction ran in a box on page two, that’s how print corrections traditionally have been made in most newspapers for I would guess the last 80 years or so.

    You can make an argument about how magazines and newspapers bury their corrections into a place less prominent than the mistakes, but that’s the way it has always been, so I don’t know how you find it amazing. Readers familiar with the publication usually check the corrections page as a matter of course, the tradition being that the corrections will always be in the same place so they know where to look. I’m not sure where you expect the LAT to put its corrections other than the traditional corrections space. I would be “amazed” if the corrections ran anywhere else, so that people looking for and checking up on corrections had to search the entire paper instead of looking at the traditional corrections page for corrections.

    Aplomb (b6fba6)

  2. I use the word “amazing” in a tongue in cheek fashion. I am of course familiar with how newspapers place corrections.

    But I did once have a serious suggestion about running more prominent corrections — and I published it in an op-ed in the L.A. Times! Read it here.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  3. Ode To Our Times…

    A paper now bankrupt;
    As so often said;
    Its Times is up;
    The Tomb is just dead.

    DCSCA (d8da01)

  4. In the early days of typesetting, the smallest available was effectively 9 point. 6 point was invented to print corrections.

    None of this is true, but at least I’m on par with the Times.

    Apogee (366e8b)

  5. All they had to do was show just a little skepticism for the Democrats’ spin, and this could have been avoided.

    Nah, nah, nah.

    I know Jaimie has been somewhat of your foil for the last few years, but let’s hope that she has updated her resume. God bless her, but she won’t be missed.

    JVW (bff0a4)

  6. when the write the history of the times, may i suggest the title be: “The Scum Always Rises”?

    we can’t put -30- on the Times soon enough.

    redc1c4 (27fd3e)

  7. Does not surprise me in the least.

    Here is a paper that brags about a design award, bestowed, less then a year ago, can’t possibly imagine what sort of a design might have been examined.

    Fer sure they do not, nor will ever, qualify for a first amendment award!

    http://www.richfieldreaper.com/

    The only relation to the subject matter is that the times is not a stand alone publication.

    You think the times is bad? They are in reality nuttin but printed fire starter.

    TC (0b9ca4)

  8. MSM biased? Well strike me dead! LOL.

    Dandapani (7aefb0)

  9. The LA Times’ story was “by design.” The correction is “by design.”

    Look, newspapers have an audience that they have to please, or that audience will look elsewhere for its infotainment. You can hardly blame the LA Times here. It’s a business, and as such, virtually everything it does is by design.

    It is part of the design of the newspaper to cater to a liberal audience. You can’t do that if you’re pointing out that, for example, Louisiana Democrats outlawed abortion. Or that Senate Democrats killed the Union Bailout. How does that help?

    Answer: It doesn’t.

    You’re frustrated that you can’t design the LA Times, and we get that. But conservatives have the exact same options to purchase newspapers as Democrats have … yet, they cede that ground to the liberals.

    Shame on conservatives! They deserve the harvest they sow.

    howitworks (d084ad)

  10. Upon reading your published OpEd piece from 2005, my first impression was that you were addressing a culture of carelessness: they had deadlines to meet, and getting it in print was more important than getting it right.

    Were the Times hiring rather than firing, I’d suggest that they need to hire internal contrarians, people who will read a piece looking for mistakes. Editors used to serve that function, but apparently no longer do.

    The careful Dana (556f76)

  11. howitworks wrote:

    But conservatives have the exact same options to purchase newspapers as Democrats have … yet, they cede that ground to the liberals.

    Well, it’s true that conservatives prefer to make money rather than lose it . . . .

    The Dana who doesn't like to lose money (556f76)

  12. The Los Angeles Times correction is incorrect. There are 48 Democrats in the Senate, not 50. The same was true when that vote was taken. The Times is also loath to divulge that there are more Republicans (49) than Democrats (48) in the Senate.

    Official Internet Data Office (8aa339)

  13. “It’s Chinatown, Jake!”

    Another Drew (4dc1ef)

  14. I’m glad to see Jamie is still reading email from you! That they made the correction is noteworthy but as I read through the rest of the corrections and saw that they, the LAT based in the heart of movie-making land even misstated last year’s best movie Oscar winner thus needing a correction, makes me think they are really slipping. And obviously not just with the meaty stories.

    Dana (79a78b)

  15. I’m looking forward to your yearly opus on the LAT’s factually challenged statements.

    Bradley J. Fikes (0ea407)

  16. Damage is already done. Too late. They already misinformed the public who might not buy the exact issue or even be aware of the incorrect reporting. They call that lies if you use the misinformation or bend the truth to meet your agenda.

    wa.bear.hunter (310603)

  17. “Well, it’s true that conservatives prefer to make money rather than lose it …”

    And that’s why conservatives don’t control the levers of power in this country, or even in the Republican Party.

    Let me put it in terms even a businessman could understand: “You have to spend money to make power.”

    Investing in newspapers would allow conservatives to set the terms of the debate, creating a pro-business regulatory environment, rather than watch the government steal huge chunks of equity from businesses and dictating how much people will get paid.

    Conservative short-sightedness on this issue is “business stupid.” So, if conservatives want power, they’ll first have to pick smarter leaders who understand that owning printing presses is a prerequisite to power.

    howitworks (d084ad)

  18. Comment by howitworks — 12/21/2008 @ 4:59 am

    Well, all you need to do is find us a Conservative Businessman who wants to invest in a declining business model to the tune of several Billion Dollars, and watch his net-worth diminish each and every year he’s in operation…
    Can we find another Charles Foster Kane?

    Another Drew (0403d0)

  19. Said it before, and I’ll repeat: LA Times deserves to go out of business…can’t come too soon.

    sam (a66070)

  20. ” … all you need to do is find us a Conservative Businessman who wants to invest in a declining business mode …”

    See, you still don’t get it. You don’t buy up the newspapers to make a profit from the newspapers. You buy up the newspapers to create the climate which will allow you to prosper in other businesses.

    George Soros understands this. Which is why he’s investing hundreds of millions of dollars creating the environment necessary for liberals to literally steal equity.

    Conservatives had better wise up. Buying up the newspapers takes the megaphone away from your adversaries so that their message can’t get out.

    It’s a war. And the liberals understand that.

    howitworks (d084ad)

  21. I’m surprised that the correction is not misleading. I had predicted otherwise.

    Joshua (9ede0e)

  22. Comment by howitworks — 12/21/2008 @ 1:00 pm
    Well, that’s all well and good for Soros, who needs the tax right-offs to shelter the billions he made tweaking the oil-futures market – I hope he’s selling short now.

    Another Drew (0403d0)

  23. “Well, that’s all well and good for Soros, who needs the tax right-offs (sic) …”

    Soros isn’t in it for the money kid. He’s got all the money a man could ever spend.

    He’s playing chess, not tic-tac-toe. Conservatives are stupid and have no sense of the game that is even being played against them. That is why it is so trivial to defeat them.

    howitworks (d084ad)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.2291 secs.