L.A. Times Ethics Code
Some readers have written me about the L.A. Times ethics code, portions of which L.A. Observed published today here. (The entire thing is available for download.)
Readers have especially drawn my attention to this passage:
A fair-minded reader of Times news coverage should not be able to discern the private opinions of those who contributed to that coverage, or to infer that the newspaper is promoting any agenda. A crucial goal of our news and feature reporting – apart from editorials, columns, criticism and other content that is expressly opinionated – is to be nonideological.
Look, I think it’s great that the paper has this as its goal. Whether that goal is being met is another issue entirely, which I discussed recently, here. But it’s a good goal.
As to how the paper meets this and other goals set forth in the ethics code, I leave that to the reader to decide. Occasionally, I think they do a pretty good job. Most days, I think they fall short — as you must know if you read this site on a consistent basis.
But I wish the folks at The Times good luck in their efforts to meet the goals set forth in this ethics code.
You cannot blame them for trying!
But, what about Ron Brownstein and his inherent conflicts with the ethics code?:
Ron Brownstein: Disclosure or Conflict of Interest? – REDUX
Flap (adece0) — 7/13/2005 @ 8:19 pmFor a rag that features Stalinist scumbag apologists like Robert Scheer these guidelines are meaningless.
The only action that will get me to renew my subscription to this crappy rag is the purge of the top five levels of management at the LA Tome (Times). After that, I want the privilege to go through the dishonest ranks of the Times reporter staff and kick ass. As I speak for myself, I know I speak for thousands of former Times subscribers who are sick and tired of listening to the liberal-protected, far-left war crimes apologists who can’t figure out the difference between Charles Manson and the bin Ladin war criminals. Hint: there is no difference!
Mescalero (388cb7) — 7/13/2005 @ 8:48 pmPatterico–off subject. What do you think as a deputy district attorney about the Ebbers stock fraud sentence? First the female judge gave Bernie Ebbers 30 years and then after a few minutes argument reduced it to 25 years. Ebbers is 63 years old. My question (as a guy who lost hundreds of thousands of dollars in worldcom stock and bonds): how does this sentence which in effect is a death sentence stack up with violent criminals sentences? For example in the convicted child molestor case of the man who recently killed three adults, kidnapped a 9 year old boy (who he killed later)and his older sister–he had been previously convicted of raping and molesting a 14 year old boy and the sentence was 12 years I believe. While I do want Ebbers punished, it IS ONLY MONEY and I am uncomfortable with the thought that my money is more important that Ebbers life. Though I’ll have to admit I’d like the money back. Also I worry that the judge in this case was motivated by revenge or gender resentment (would she have given the same sentence to a woman as whe did to the man?) hence the arbitrary dropping of the sentence from 30 years to 25 years after only a few minutes argument. This long trial was notorious so it can’t be that she was ignorant about the circumstances and yet it looks to me as if she is totally arbitrary in her sentencing. Why not drop it to 15 years or 17.5 years? I wonder if she dropped the sentence only because she was feeling guilty about her hatred and disdain for this wealthy white male crook. What would you have recommended as a sentence and why?
john (8c7840) — 7/13/2005 @ 11:44 pmThe times is a joke, they think their perspective is the only one and imagine that talking about being self righteous is equivalent to being fair. Their hatred for Israel makes everything they write on the middle east irrelevant and their writers have no idea of the meaning of balance. While I grew up reading the times, I have refused to renew even when they offered it for free.
cosmicview (ee9fe2) — 7/14/2005 @ 4:27 amThe stated goal is laudable, but I think it’s really just a cover story for their real agenda.
Challenge them. If they say their goal is to provide non-idological coverage, then each reporter should offer a bio and a statement (not in fuzzy terms, either) of their current ideology.
To not offer as much is to assume perfection on the part of the people at the LAT. Is that what they’re saying, “we at the LAT are perfect”..?
And if it’s not what they’re saying, then they should have no trouble stating their ideologies and preferences up front. Unless their code really is just a cover story.
ras (f9de13) — 7/14/2005 @ 10:58 amI think the draconian nature of the white collar sentences (in addition to politics and all that) are perhaps justified based on the difficulty of proving crime in this case (and hence the greater detterent value required).
TCO (3c2924) — 7/16/2005 @ 9:25 pm