Patterico's Pontifications

3/10/2009

L.A. Times: Still Cowards

Filed under: Dog Trainer,General — Patterico @ 12:18 am

They still can’t call a criminal a criminal:

The last of Hollywood private eye Anthony Pellicano’s co-defendants in his criminal trials last year was sentenced today to more than two years in prison. Kevin Kachikian was the tech whiz who allegedly helped Pellicano design and create Telesleuth, the computer program prosecutors said allowed the investigator to digitally record private phone conversations for his wealthy and powerful clients.

What the hell is up with the use of words like “allegedly” and “prosecutors said”?? Kachikian said himself that he helped Pellicano design and create Telesleuth. Why, I think I might have read that in . . . the L.A. Times — back when they had the guts to tell the truth on this issue:

Meanwhile, Kevin Kachikian, 43, who wrote the code for Pellicano’s TeleSleuth computer program for wiretapping, is the social misfit who by his own admission grew up more comfortable with electronics than with girls.

What’s the difference now? Now he’s been convicted. It should be easier to say the truth now.

But for some reason they’re finding it harder.

Kevin Kachikian was the tech whiz who allegedly helped Pellicano design and create Telesleuth, the computer program prosecutors said that allowed the investigator to digitally record private phone conversations for his wealthy and powerful clients.

If the L.A. Times is too weak-willed to say that nowadays, I will.

19 Responses to “L.A. Times: Still Cowards”

  1. Maybe it was easier just to cut-and-paste from some old pre-conviction stories than actually write the stories again.

    The Dana who suspects that they're lazy. (3e4784)

  2. Well, at least the didn’t comment as to his gender or race.

    carlitos (3f0da9)

  3. As Hacks tried to tell us, this is simply the most accurate way of reporting this.

    JD (dda3fa)

  4. maybe they say alleged because there are appeals pending that could overturn the convictions and thus alleged is the correct word to use?
    and legal at newpapers would need to consider that to avoid having to print retractions etc.

    rf9099 (ec2d32)

  5. Everybody knows that under this administration allegations are enough to send you to prison. What’s more, given a few more months in power, it might not be a joke. I know what Conyers has in mind for Rove.

    Mike K (2cf494)

  6. Do they use this formulation in all their articles about convicted criminals or only the ones their reporters pal around with?

    kaf (16e0b5)

  7. I suppose it depends on your world view and the value you place on justice, the actual kind not the redistributive socialist kind.

    Vivian Louise (eeeb3a)

  8. Can’t die soon enough – I’ll get a shovel myself and start digging, it that’ll help speed things along.

    Dmac (49b16c)

  9. [...] Speaking of which: website-you-should-be-reading-of-the-day is Top of the Ticket. Yes, some good can come out of the LA Times, though don’t tell Patterico. [...]

    Tuesday morning links | And Still I Persist (13e666)

  10. Innocent after found guilty. A new formulation.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  11. Are they as circumspect in their reportage concerning someone who is not an ally or comrade? How about someone politically opposed?

    Inquiring minds want to know.

    And what happens when the only papers left are USA Today, The Globe, The National Enquirer? Not much.

    quasimodo (edc74e)

  12. Hey Patrick, it’s Spring Street!

    AD - RtR/OS (10796a)

  13. [...] Question:  When is a convicted felon not a convicted felon?  Answer:  When the Los Angeles Times  writes about him. This was written by admin. Posted on Tuesday, March 10, 2009, at 12:34 pm. Filed under Newspapers, Journalism 101, Reporting. Bookmark the permalink. Follow comments here with the RSS feed. Post a comment or leave a trackback. [...]

    The Farm Report › (0e22df)

  14. The straight shooting LAT stands tall and calls illegal aliens … undocumented immigrants.

    Perfect Sense (0922fa)

  15. You got it wrong Patterico.

    If you read the whole story the answer pops up. This guy was ACQUITTED on NINE counts and CONVICTED on TWO counts. In these cases it is often hard to know exactly what the jury found to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and what it did not find to be so proven.

    This issue comes up in civil litigation where person x has been convicted of some counts relating to an alleged crime and acquitted on others, and one wants to use collateral estoppel offensively in a civil trial by the victim against the perp. It can be very hard to determine what facts were or were not proven.

    This is a sign of caution by the writer, not cowardice.

    Cyrus Sanai (ada6da)

  16. This guy was ACQUITTED on NINE counts and CONVICTED on TWO counts. In these cases it is often hard to know exactly what the jury found to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and what it did not find to be so proven.

    Could someone reconcile these two sentences for my non-lawyer brain?

    Techie (9c008e)

  17. Right Cyrus. You just did the same thing yourself.

    This issue comes up in civil litigation where person x has been convicted of some counts relating to an alleged crime and acquitted on others

    When someone is convicted, you can stop calling it “an alleged crime.” Is that so hard?

    carlitos (3f0da9)

  18. Techie, I’m pretty sure that the jury found the guy guilty beyond a reasonable doubt on the 2 felony counts for which he was convicted, but I’m no lawyer, so it’s not “hard for me to know exactly.” :)

    carlitos (3f0da9)

  19. How many times have I received a reply, after lodging a complaint with some company, etc., that they were looking into my “alleged complaint?” Maybe this is another example of writers with only a passing familiarity with English. Oh, how much the public schools have to answer for!

    davis (a1fd1c)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.2860 secs.