My Letter to the Readers’ Representative About the L.A. Times‘s Editing of Those Reuters Stories
Yesterday, I told you how the L.A. Times edited a Reuters story to remove information about a satellite recording, which allegedly proves that the car bearing Italian journalist Giuliana Sgrena was speeding towards a U.S. checkpoint.
I told you that I would give The Times until today to report that information — and that, if they failed to do so, I would write the Readers’ Representative to inquire.
Not only has The Times failed to report that information today, it has once again excised a passage relating to the alleged satellite recording.
So, as promised, I have sent the letter. Here it is:
Dear Ms. Gold,
Your paper recently ran two Reuters stories concerning the shooting of the car with Giuliana Sgrena. Each of the Reuters stories contained the following quote:
CBS news has reported that a U.S. satellite had filmed the shooting and that it had been established the car carrying Calipari was traveling at more than 60 mph per hour [sic] as it approached the U.S. checkpoint in Baghdad.
http://reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=8350013
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=8351887
The L.A. Times reprints of these stories, published April 30, 2005 (“U.S., Italy Fail to Agree on Slaying “), and May 1, 2005 (“Italy to Step Up Inquiry Into Agent’s Death in Iraq”), both omitted the above quote. The L.A. Times versions presented the issue of the car’s speed as a swearing contest between American soldiers, on one hand, and Sgrena and her driver, on the other. No mention of the satellite evidence appeared in the L.A. Times edits:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-nicola30apr30,1,6728628.story
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-italy1may01,1,946622.story
I am curious to know why this was done. The only arguably legitimate reason I can imagine is that L.A. Times editors have reason to doubt the reports about the satellite recording. But, if that’s the case, I would expect them to report the facts supporting their doubts. After all, the story is in wide circulation, with CBS News, Reuters, and AFP all reporting it (albeit all based on the CBS News report). If there is reason to doubt the story, the public should know that.
If the passage was cut for other reasons, the public should know that too. I can’t imagine that it was done for space reasons. Since this incident happened, the L.A. Times has run numerous articles reporting Sgrena’s allegations that the car had been going only 25-30 mph. This is a critical issue in the controversy between Italy and the U.S. over the shooting. Under these circumstances, space can’t be a legitimate reason for omitting the alleged existence of definitive proof that the car was speeding.
I would appreciate it if you would pass along the editors’ reasons for cutting this passage out of the Reuters stories. I will be happy to print any response on my blog. Thanks.
Patrick Frey
Patterico’s Pontifications
https://patterico.com
As always, I will let you know what I hear in response.
UPDATE: I sent a follow-up e-mail:
Re my previous e-mail:
I am also interested to know why, in the first story, editors changed the word “killing” in the first sentence of the Reuters story to the more sinister-sounding word “slaying.”
Patterico
Patterico’s Pontifications
https://patterico.com
Any response(s) will be printed when I receive them.
[…] th await the L.A. Times’s response: P.S.: Let’s see how the Times responds to Patterico’ […]
Patterico's Pontifications » Kaus on the Satellite Claim (0c6a63) — 5/2/2005 @ 2:13 pm[…] in Iraq. Maybe we’ll find out the real reason when (if?) the editors respond to my recent query […]
Patterico's Pontifications » The Sgrena Suppression: Due to Suspicion of CBS News? (0c6a63) — 5/3/2005 @ 1:47 am[…] in Iraq. Maybe we’ll find out the real reason when (if?) the editors respond to my recent query […]
Patterico's Pontifications » The Sgrena Suppression: Due to Suspicion of CBS News? (0c6a63) — 5/3/2005 @ 1:48 am[…] m? Partisan politics? Not enough room in the paper? Something else entirely? I dunno. I’m askin& […]
Patterico's Pontifications » Still Nothing on the Alleged Satellite Recording (0c6a63) — 5/3/2005 @ 1:15 pm[…] 7;t think of any. In any event, why should we have to engage in such speculation? I have asked Times edit […]
Patterico's Pontifications » Responding to Howard Kurtz (0c6a63) — 5/4/2005 @ 12:58 am[…] hile, still no word from the “Readers’ Representative” in response to my query about […]
Patterico's Pontifications » Denver Papers Hide Alleged Existence of Satellite Recording (0c6a63) — 5/7/2005 @ 7:35 pmI at first felt that the first omission of the proof exhonerating our troops in combat HAD to have been an error. But when it happened a second time – then it was clear that this editing of a Reuters wire was deliberate on the part of the LA times to hide this information from its readers. But it simply made no sense – even for the LA Times, until I realized the only possible explanation.
The LA Times is now in the business of not only covering up its own lies and errors – but it now also covers up the lies of other reporters at other news agencies. The fact that a reporter would so blantly lie about what happened at that checkpoint is a truth that the LA Times simply can not handle.
I will later post a round-up of the LA Times’ soon to be infamous week of errors and deception.
Brady Westwater (72f6df) — 5/1/2005 @ 12:34 pmThese subtle word choices by L.A. Times writers are a continual annoyance. Also today in the Times is a full-page hit piece on John Bolton that opens with “When John R. Bolton charged into the State Department in 2001 . . .” Not ‘joined’ or ‘entered’ but ‘charged’. Like a bull, I presume. You see this kind of stuff all the time.
Jackie Warner (95d9f3) — 5/1/2005 @ 4:02 pmYou know what, thank you. I have no clever link idea to get more hits on my website.
reelcobra (874b3f) — 5/1/2005 @ 8:23 pmNo new news about newzzzzz……
Classical Values (6ec4b2) — 5/3/2005 @ 8:54 amI can’t think of a more perfect example of why the mainstream media hates bloggers than this: Los Angeles Times editors have edited a Reuters story to remove critical facts supporting the U.S. position on an important international issue. This…