Responding to Howard Kurtz
Howard Kurtz said something in today’s “Media Notes” column that I think calls for a response from me:
A blog called Patterico’s Pontifications takes a whack at the LAT over this story:
” WASHINGTON — The United States and Italy disagreed Friday in the conclusions of a joint investigation into the slaying of an Italian agent by U.S. troops in Iraq, further straining ties between the two allies.
“The L.A. Times story is actually an edited version of a Reuters story that appeared on the news service yesterday afternoon. The Reuters story reported that investigators using satellite footage of the incident have conclusively determined that the car was speeding, just as the U.S. has always maintained. On page two of the story, the Reuters news service reported:
” 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.
“Thus, the Reuters story reported that there is definitive proof that the car was speeding towards the checkpoint — critical information that tends to justify U.S. soldiers’ decision to fire on the car. But in the version appearing in the L.A. Times, editors cut out the passage reporting that proof. . . .
“There is no excuse for the L.A. Times story not reporting this information.”
Unless, of course, there was some doubt about the CBS report.
I have said this already, but I’ll repeat it here for Kurtz’s benefit. Let’s run through the conceivable justifications for cutting the satellite story out of the Reuters report, together with the obvious responses:
Possible LAT Justification: We have a specific reason for doubting the CBS News story.
Response: Great! Let’s hear it!
As I’ve said, the satellite story has been widely circulated. If the L.A. Times is sitting on specific information that undermines that story, that is a scoop. The public should know.
Possible LAT Justification: Okay, we don’t have a specific reason to doubt the story. But we just don’t repeat allegations made by anonymous sources cited by other media outlets.
Response: Since when?? When CBS News issued a report about President Bush’s Texas Air National Guard Service — based upon documents provided by an anonymous source who was deemed “unimpeachable” by Dan Rather — your paper splashed that all over the front page.
So: that dog won’t hunt either. Now here’s one that might:
Possible LAT Justification: Don’t you think we learned from that? Ever since the CBS forged documents controversy, we have a new policy: don’t republish allegations from anonymous sources from other news organizations — at least if that organization is CBS News.
Response: You may have a point there. I didn’t initially consider that possible justification, which was later pointed out to me by another blogger.
I might be able to respect that explanation. If I were a newspaper editor, I’d probably institute a “Don’t Trust CBS News” policy myself.
But if that’s the justification, Times editors . . . I’d like to hear you say it.
Are there other possible reasons? I suppose there could be. But I can’t think of any.
In any event, why should we have to engage in such speculation? I have asked Times editors their reason for excising the information about the satellite recording.
Hopefully I’ll get a response to my query soon. If and when I do, I’ll share it with you.
If it’s interesting, maybe I’ll share it with Howard Kurtz as well.
“Michael Kinsley was nearly enthusiastic…”
while your blog “takes a whack…”
Kurtz could save everyone a lot of time and just write “liberal media: wondrous at a ten while conservative media is at a zero”.
That’d be KURTZ’s reality, not mine, just to be clear here.
That entire column by Kurtz fails to challenge any of those he otherwise ebulates about. He’s truly an apologist and that’s sad, coming from someone who used to enjoy his column.
-S- (0ae3db) — 5/3/2005 @ 6:32 pmIMHO, justifications 1 and 2, above, are nonsense. Number 3 is very, very weak — it would be easy to use words like “alleged,” “reported,” and “claimed” to express doubt about the credibility of CBS.
I wonder whether anyone at the LAT is checking the internet to see how this is unfolding. In light of recent events (weblogs vs. big media), I’m stunned that the LAT editors deluded themselves into believing they would not get caught.
L. Barnes (b310a6) — 5/3/2005 @ 7:43 pmPatterico–
Here is my prediction:
You will hear back.
They will say it was an editing decision made for space requirements. And further they will say naught.
How can you argue with that? You can’t. They knew their requirements for laying out the paper that day, and we can’t. So even if it’s bias–against America or against CBS–they will ask us to believe that that one sentence graf was going to run the whole thing long.
Of course that brings up the question of why they cut that particular (very telling) snippet, and not something else.
But that will be an “editing decision”. It can be blamed on the space without admitting more, and therefore I think it will.
If I’m wrong I’ll buy you a drink next time you’re in my part of the state.
See-Dubya (35af18) — 5/3/2005 @ 8:38 pmLet’s not forget that the Italian Socialist’s relentless charge of American guilt is according to Italy gone
reelcobra (ef171e) — 5/3/2005 @ 8:39 pmAs for the LA Times…business as usual
reelcobra (ef171e) — 5/3/2005 @ 8:41 pmand, sorry to be back, the link I meant in comment 4 was LA Times bias
reelcobra (ef171e) — 5/3/2005 @ 8:44 pmSee-Dubya,
If they say “space reasons” they lose this round in the credibility game. They’d better come up with something better than that.
Patterico (756436) — 5/3/2005 @ 8:45 pmP–
I’m sorry, were they even playing the “credibility game”?
Space reasons.
It’s not really even fair. They’ll read your comments and figure out that I’m right. It’s simply the least damaging response and also the least falsifiable response.
You don’t actually think they would admit to that kind of bias, do you? So soon on the heels of losing that reporter?
See-Dubya (35af18) — 5/3/2005 @ 9:16 pmI could be wrong, but I predict that it will be a little while before I hear anything — if ever.
Their best defense is the one Howie Kurtz suggested for them: we didn’t buy the story. But if they commit themselves to that explanation now, before the viability of the satellite story is proved or disproved, they have to explain why they were suspicious. And that runs them into the responses above.
That’s why I think they’ll wait a while, to see how it plays out. If it looks like the satellite story fizzled, they can claim they distrusted it all along. They don’t even have to explain why; after all, they were right! Who cares why?
That’s what they’re hoping will happen, I’m sure. So why commit themselves now?
After all, they know people are paying attention. If Kurtz is writing about your paper — even if he is supporting you — you tend to notice that.
Patterico (756436) — 5/3/2005 @ 9:26 pmGrrrr claw scratch hold on claw some more dont let go.
keep it up & dont allow this to go away without a reasonable and public explanation from the times.
Grrrr. claw, scratch. grrrr
cali white bear (379cd7) — 5/3/2005 @ 10:58 pmNone of the above explain the editorial decision to change from the “kill” faminly of verbs to the “slay” family, as you reported the LAT did in two successive news stories.
No, I think you’re on pretty firm ground. Howie is walking on a floating mat of rotting vegetation.
Dan S (d281eb) — 5/4/2005 @ 12:08 pmWhat are the error bars around the satellite estimates of speed?
What are the error bars around the estimates of a human (in the backseat?) of a car (at night?)
Is it possible that words to the effect of “traveling at a reasonable speed given the circumstances” could be anywhere from 30-70 and thus Sgrena’s estimate could match up well with the satellite’s measurement within its error bars?
lawyers don't always know science (465ba2) — 5/4/2005 @ 1:04 pm