Patterico's Pontifications

3/3/2009

Reason #741 That I’m Having a Tough Time Caring About the Gradual Death of the L.A. Times

Filed under: Crime,Dog Trainer — Patterico @ 11:34 pm

They’re sniveling cowards:

Three co-defendants who prosecutors say played roles in an elaborate wiretapping scheme by Hollywood private detective Anthony Pellicano were sentenced to federal prison today.

One by one, each of Pellicano’s co-defendants stood in front of U.S. District Judge Dale S. Fischer as she read over their sentences. Former LAPD Sgt. Mark Arneson was sentenced to 10 years and one month in federal prison.

Rayford Earl Turner, a former phone company technician who provided company information to Pellicano, was also sentenced to 10 years and one month.

Abner Nicherie, 44, was sentenced to 21 months.

The part that was cowardly, I made bold. (Thank you. Thank you very much.)

They were convicted. Don’t tell me prosecutors say they participated in Pellicano’s scheme. They did. Twelve people found beyond a reasonable doubt they did.

So say so.

30 Responses to “Reason #741 That I’m Having a Tough Time Caring About the Gradual Death of the L.A. Times”

  1. 1. A literalist would be awfully confused. What happened to a fair trial? Or did these guys plea bargain? Of course, the LA Times could have substituted

    convicted of playing roles

    for

    who prosecutors say played roles

    and at the same time save space and provide more facts.

    2. The LA Times has not, of this writing, listed patterico.com in its Trackback section.

    Ira (28a423)

  2. I’m simply surprised that you’re only up to reason #741; I’d have thought you’d be well into four digits by now.

    The amused Dana (3e4784)

  3. Kind of splitting hairs, but “prosecutors say” conveys a degree more objectivity than portraying the jury’s verdict as received truth.

    Secondly, the squib of an article is short on all manner of details, including what the actually were convicted of. I can imagine an editor sticking with “prosecutors say” as a safer way to go if the reporter didn’t have the details on what precisely they were convicted of.

    Cowardly? Well, to a degree I suppose it is. It would be better to get the facts straight so you don’t have to hedge at all. But cowardliness is a misdemeanor, inaccuracy is a felony…

    Hax Vobiscum (4012df)

  4. Kind of splitting hairs, but “prosecutors say” conveys a degree more objectivity than portraying the jury’s verdict as received truth.

    The position of a party to the case is a more objective description of the situation than a finding of fact by a dispassionate jury. Hacks, you really are a dumb SOB.

    Pablo (99243e)

  5. I am thinking that once the Times has died, it might get rid of that nasty fishy smell that seems to hang over the whole LA basin.

    Unless that is our local government.

    David (c6fe09)

  6. I see that the journalist that is dummerer than a Hack of sacks, or a sack of Hacks is up to its normal mendoucheousness.

    Patterico – If you had not told me differently, it would be hard to believe that it does not work for the LA Times. This one reserves some of its best bad behavior in defense of the Times.

    JD (63d902)

  7. Reason #74 to stay out of LA? You never know what a prosecutor will say about you that will land you in prison. ;)

    nk (502275)

  8. Does anybody else think that Hax had a hand in writing that Times story ? It’s supposed to be a newspaper critter and there is no other reason to say something that dumb.

    Mike K (2cf494)

  9. Pablo: Not sure what you’re trying to say.

    “Prosectors say” is factual and probably more precise than, say, “a jury found,” when what follows is not a verbatim description of the crime. The jury decides guilt, not the specific circumstances of what took place in the crime.

    Factuality and precision are more important than political correctness, now matter how much you may not like the implication that a prosecutor may be wrong, even when a jury rules in his or her favor.

    Hax Vobiscum (4012df)

  10. Mike K – Patterico stated specifically that it does not work for the Times. I concur that it seems to save some of its most profound menducheity for posts critical of the Times.

    JD (63d902)

  11. I vote we release various members of San Quentin prison into Hack’s tender mercies. After all, only prosecutors SAY they did anything wrong. Not like they had a a trial or anything.

    Techie (6b5d8d)

  12. This asshat talking about factuality and precision is breath-taking.

    JD (63d902)

  13. “Prosectors say” is factual and probably more precise than, say, “a jury found,” when what follows is not a verbatim description of the crime. The jury decides guilt, not the specific circumstances of what took place in the crime.

    The problem, Hax, is that the phrase “prosecutors say” carries the implication that the prosecutors may be wrong. It would have been far more correct for The Times to have said:

    “Three co-defendants who were found guilty of having played roles in an elaborate wiretapping scheme by Hollywood private detective Anthony Pellicano were sentenced to federal prison today.”

    But you knew that already. Just as you know the paper was deliberately avoiding the truth of the matter, and you’re trying to defend it.

    Steverino (b12c49)

  14. Steverino – It is what it does.

    JD (63d902)

  15. Pablo: Not sure what you’re trying to say.

    Of course you’re not, Hacks.

    I can imagine an editor sticking with “prosecutors say” as a safer way to go if the [LA Times- ed.] reporter didn’t have the details on what precisely they were convicted of.

    Where’s Chuck Phillips when you need him? That poor editor.

    Pablo (99243e)

  16. When I was a wee journo cub, the LA Times was one of the bestest outposts of journalism. At least that’s what I was told, and believed.

    Then a few years ago I came across this feller named Patterico who relentlessly dissed the LA Times with all sorts of lies and exaggerations. But as I began trying to debunk his lies and distortions, a funny thing happened: time and again, Patterico turned out to be right, and the LAT turned out to be wrong.

    Patterico argued very unfairly: He included copious documentation, including links to source material. The LAT often had very little beyond just the sacred word of its reporters. So while the LAT had the righteousness of journalism on its side, which should have been enough, Patterico unfairly replied with facts and data.

    Accepting that one’s basic factual assumptions are wrong is always painful. Hence, I denounce Patterico for the massive pain he has inflicted upon the bearers of journalistic light at Spring Street.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407)

  17. Did you hear of Denny’s Octomom special?

    16 eggs, no sausage, and the guy at the next table pays for it all!

    Just to cheer you all up!

    Joe (17aeff)

  18. The article never says that they are going to prison because they were convicted of a crime associated with the wiretapping scheme. For all I know they are going to prison for tax evasion.

    All I know is that they are people who prosecutors say nasty things about and who happen to be going to prison. Why their being sentenced one at a time is relevant I will never know. Even Turner’s information is not explicitly tied to his crime. It’s just stated like by the way this guy told this other guy stuff once.

    Amphipolis (fdbc48)

  19. Just another in a long line of biased opinion disguised via omission – I’m so numb to all of this crap in our media by now that it barely causes a ripple.

    Dmac (49b16c)

  20. That’s a relief. I was wondering if I had to be especially nice to Patterico, or he’d have me off to jail on his say-so. Good to know that we still have juries and courts and things in the Age of Obama.

    Kevin Murphy (0b2493)

  21. Also:

    > One by one, each of Pellicano’s convicted-by-a-jury co-defendants stood in front of U.S. District Judge Dale S. Fischer…

    The bolded part didn’t get through the multiple layers of editors and fact-checkers.

    AMac (c822c9)

  22. The criminal-as-victim is embedded deeply in to most liberal’s brains. You can’t get around it or retrain it. I’ve tried.

    Vivian Louise (eeeb3a)

  23. In another example of journalistic excellence, the Chicago Tribune mentioned the “tea party” movement last month, but failed to note that one occurred this week outside their front door. Now that it happened, and wasn’t covered by them, they are mentioning a wild conspiracy theory that originated with Playboy !

    Great journalism strikes again.

    Mike K (2cf494)

  24. Eliot Spitzer used to SAY all sorts of nasty things about people in the press as Attorney General in New York. It turns out that he didn’t like to go to court or follow through on a lot of the things he said, however, if you look at his record. Hax, as usual, is all wet on his word parsing here. Hax, call home, your village is missing its idiot.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  25. Good, daley; very good!

    AD - RtR/OS (6b51ea)

  26. What does LAT say when a Republican politician is sentenced?That might shed some light on this practice.

    The Raving Theist (051927)

  27. Experts Say!
    According to sources close to Obama

    using that nonsense lets one say anything

    and

    you can protect your “sources”

    Typical White Person (240772)

  28. I feel we are in a kind of Zen period, waiting for the LAT to die. Or would that be a meta period. Anyway, I think perhaps a haiku contest would be in order, to illuminate this interregnum before the final cataclysmic event, as the Times’ squishy center begins not to hold. (Your opera/music post I suppose has inspired this.)

    Patricia (419c68)

  29. “Prosecutors say” is simply poor writing by an incompetent reporter.

    There is no excuse.

    Drop those two words and you have an accurate lede. There is not even a reason to substitute “who were found guilty by a jury of playing roles.”

    “Three co-defendants who played roles in an elaborate wiretapping scheme by Hollywood private detective Anthony Pellicano were sentenced to federal prison today.”

    The Times laid off all the good reporters and only the idiots are left.

    slp (adbb56)

  30. The original point of the post is well taken. What floors me about the story is the 10 year sentences for people who were probably thinking that they were committing a misdemeanor. Would a sentence of, say, four years have given potential wiretappers the feeling that wiretapping is a risk worth taking? I’m in federal court occasionally for sentencings, and it blows me away how judges just wipe out people’s lives for crimes that, while definitely worth punishing, ain’t worth a decade.

    vince52 (0e73d2)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.2277 secs.