The Los Angeles Times Has Not Set Things Right on the Scalia Tape Controversy
The Los Angeles Dog Trainer reports here that Justice Scalia has apologized to a representative of a reporter’s organization, for the actions of a deputy U.S. marshal in confiscating and erasing journalists’ tape recordings of a Scalia speech. (I told you about Justice Scalia’s apology yesterday, in an update to this post.) The publication of this story does not undo the Times’s previous mishandling of the reporting of this incident.
Today’s story, written by David Savage, quotes Scalia as saying that he did not order the deputy marshal’s actions:
“The action was not taken at my direction. I was as upset as you were,” said Scalia.
(Emphasis mine.) Savage does not present any evidence to contradict Scalia’s assertion, which leads the rational reader to conclude that no such evidence exists. Apparently, Savage never had any actual evidence for his assertions, made repeatedly in an earlier story, that Scalia had ordered the deputy to take these illegal actions.
By reporting this story, I guess the Times editors will now consider that they have done their duty. They have not. This story does not set matters right. The Times editors should acknowledge that their earlier reports were without sufficient foundation. They should explain why they misreported the story for days, hiding evidence that supported Scalia’s position — evidence that had been published in the Washington Post and e-mailed to Times editors by a reader (me). They should print an editorial that says that, in their editorial from yesterday, they made statements that were false — and that they knew or should have known were false. Then, and only then, will the editors have set things right.
I’m not holding my breath. In fact, I wouldn’t be shocked to see letters printed on the issue in the coming days, suggesting that Justice Scalia is lying when he says he didn’t issue the orders to the deputy marshal. After all, the Times said he had! How could the Times be wrong?
>>In fact, I wouldn’t be shocked to see letters printed on the issue in the coming days, suggesting that Justice Scalia is lying when he says he didn’t issue the orders to the deputy marshal.
Comment by Kevin Murphy — 4/13/2004 @ 9:26 am
Yes, Scalia apologized. However, I am a little disturbed by your recitation of the events. You have omitted the key fact that Scalia AND the U.S. Marshal’s office both admit that Scalia outright banned TV recording from his speeches, and he had a less-than-consistent policy regarding tape recordings, but he DID tell them that he did not want any recordings. He has since (in connection with his apology) stated that he is changing his policy. Your report that the action was not taken at his direction, may be true, but the statement could be read incorrectly to suggest that Scalia never directed that his speeches not be recorded. “The action” Scalia is referencing apparently refers to the actions of the U.S. Marshals and their treatment of this particular reporter insofar as demanding her tape recording and erasing it. Let’s all be fair in our reporting…
Comment by Mike Northrup — 4/13/2004 @ 1:07 pm
I can’t help it if you misread what I say. What I say in this post is that Scalia did not direct the deputy marshal to take the illegal actions of confiscating and erasing recordings. I link to an earlier post of mine in which I set forth the entire context more thoroughly, and say: “Justice Scalia has a standing request that audience members not tape his speeches given in private settings.” On blogs, if you haven’t read the linked items previously, you should. We can’t repeat everything we say in every post.
Nothing I have said, especially when you read the posts that I have linked to, could be read in the way you have suggested.
There is no equation between your misreading of my post and the Times’s deception in hiding facts they didn’t like.
Comment by Patterico — 4/13/2004 @ 2:01 pm
Thank you for your clarification. It’s your blog, yes. You can post how you like, even if you want to tell the story in snipits in hopes that your readers won’t backtrack to find the context and the truth. That’s how people get misquoted and things get taken out of context. Isn’t that what you are against?
Comment by Mike Northrup — 4/14/2004 @ 11:33 am
Your reading is an unreasonable interpretation of what I said. As evidenced by a comment of yours on a related thread, I don’t think you understand what happened in this case.
Comment by Patterico — 4/14/2004 @ 12:13 pm