Patterico's Pontifications

10/19/2006

Will the L.A. Times Ever Publish Jack Dunphy Again?

Filed under: Dog Trainer,General — Patterico @ 12:00 am



LAPD officer and brilliant pseudonymous columnist Jack Dunphy called me Monday, to tell me that the L.A. Times won’t be publishing his op-eds any more — at least as long as he uses a pseudonym.

But I checked into it and it may be a miscommunication between Dunphy and the folks at The Times. What does appear clear is that The Times is taking a harder line on printing op-eds by authors using pseudonyms. What this policy means for Jack Dunphy remains to be seen.

Details in the extended entry.

[Extended entry]

If you’re not familiar with Jack Dunphy, you should be. He’s an LAPD officer and one heck of a great writer. He is a regular columnist for National Review Online. You can poke around his archives at this link.

“Jack Dunphy” is a pseudonym, which Dunphy uses for good reason. Dunphy has been around for quite a while, and has published pieces critical of the LAPD brass, including former Chief Bernard Parks, and the current chief, William Bratton. For example, here is a good example of Dunphy taking Bill Bratton to task. In this piece, Dunphy questions whether Bratton’s contract should be renewed:

Bratton may indeed prove deserving of another term when the time comes, but for now many LAPD officers are unpersuaded.

. . . .

No one was more welcoming of William Bratton than I, a sentiment I expressed many times here on NRO, but recent events have given me, like nearly every cop I know, cause to reconsider.

Ouch. And speaking of Bratton’s dismissal of John Hatfield, an LAPD officer involved in a controversial use of force with racial overtones, Dunphy said:

In choosing to fire Hatfield, Bratton showed himself willing to accede to the wishes of the local grievance industry, subordinating his role as leader of the department to the demands of racial politics. Bratton has a deep well of political capital in town, but he was unwilling to spend even a drop of it to spare a cop who, though he may have made a mistake, did not deserve to lose his job.

That’s strong medicine. Do you think Bill Bratton might not be Jack Dunphy’s greatest fan?

It’s easy to see why Dunphy doesn’t publish pieces under his real name. If Bratton and his compadres were to learn who Dunphy is . . . well, they could easily find ways to make his life difficult. Soooo . . . you’re enjoying your job, are you, Jack? How about a desk job halfway across the city? How would you like that, Jack?

In addition to his work for National Review Online, Dunphy has also published several pieces for the L.A. Times. You can read an example of his work in The Times here. Dunphy tells me that The Times has published about eight pieces of his. The paper doesn’t generally publish pieces under pseudonyms, but in the past, they made an exception for Dunphy.

This was wise. It’s not like Dunphy is an unknown quantity. He truly is an LAPD officer — I have met him in the flesh. The L.A. Times‘s Tim Rutten (no right-winger he) once met Dunphy and liked him. And Bob Sipchen, the former editor of Current (the Sunday Opinion section) met Dunphy at the same function where I met him.

So Dunphy is a genuine LAPD officer, who is known to some respected people at the L.A. Times, and who has good reasons to keep his real name under wraps. And the L.A. Times has, in the past, seen fit to overlook its general rule against the use of pseudonyms by op-ed contributors, and has published several pieces by Dunphy.

But recently, when Dunphy talked to Gary Spiecker, L.A. Times Deputy Current Editor, Dunphy got the impression that he was being dumped as a contributor.

It started on September 18, 2006, when the L.A. Times ran an article titled Bratton Earns A’s Thus Far, suggesting that Bratton is likely to win a five-year contract extension when his contract comes up for renewal in a year. Dunphy wrote Spiecker and suggested that the LAPD rank and file might have a “markedly different opinion” on Bratton than the one portrayed in the Times article. Dunphy proposed articulating that opinion in an op-ed.

Time passed, and Dunphy heard nothing back. By October 12, after another exploratory e-mail, Dunphy still had not heard from Spiecker. Dunphy sent a third e-mail, reiterating his interest in presenting the rank-and-file viewpoint on Bratton. Spiecker replied by asking Dunphy to call him.

Dunphy did just that last Friday, October 13. In their conversation, Dunphy told me, Spiecker said that there have been “renewed concerns” about Dunphy’s use of the pseudonym in his pieces for The Times. Spiecker didn’t specify who was behind these “renewed concerns.” Spiecker said that, in looking at some of the pieces Dunphy had published in The Times in the past, they didn’t seem to require the use of a pseudonym.

This strikes me as a crabbed way to look at the issue. It’s quite clear that Dunphy needs to keep the pseudonym. Even if what he says in a particular column is uncontroversial, he has a documented history of honest and forthright criticism of the LAPD brass. Now, I’m sure we would all like to think that Bill Bratton and his colleagues appreciate it when the rank and file boldly expresses well-considered opinions — even if those opinions happen to be critical of the folks running the show at Parker Center. But Dunphy is unwilling to risk his career on such happy assumptions, and I don’t blame him.

Dunphy told me that he briefly tried to argue this point, but at the end of the conversation with Spiecker, it seemed clear to Dunphy that the decision had been made: Dunphy was done as a contributor to the L.A Times. So Dunphy gave up trying to persuade the L.A. Times and contacted me.

I wrote Editorial Page Editor Andrés Martinez and Op-Ed and Current Editor Nick Goldberg, and asked them what was up. Nick Goldberg — whom I have met before and who strikes me as a very decent guy — was kind enough to speak with me about this yesterday.

Goldberg said: “We have not banned [Dunphy] from the paper.” He said, however, that he wants to be very careful about publishing pieces written under pseudonyms. It is not something that should be done lightly or often, he said, and any exceptions should be rare. The op-ed page may run pieces under a pseudonym if the subject is very important, if they can’t get a similar piece from an author using his or her own name, and if there is a good reason to protect the author’s identity.

Under the principles Goldberg articulated to me, it seems like a no-brainer that The Times should continue to publish pieces by Jack Dunphy. The LAPD is a very important topic in this city. I am not familiar with any other officer who comes close to Dunphy in his ability to articulate the views of the rank and file in highly readable and entertaining prose. And, given his history of criticizing Bratton, there is ample reason to protect Dunphy’s identity. In my opinion, applying Goldberg’s own criteria, Dunphy should continue to be published.

Goldberg agreed with me that it was appropriate for the paper to have run Dunphy’s pieces in the past, and he said that the paper may well do so again in the future. Goldberg said he “doesn’t want to close the door” on the idea of ever running pieces under pseudonyms. But, he said, he is reluctant to run such pieces on a regular basis.

Recently, Goldberg told me, the The Times has received several other pieces submitted under pseudonyms. But when people write pieces without attaching their name, they cannot be held accountable for what they say, Goldberg said. It’s hard to know what their motivations are, or to be sure that they’re telling the truth.

The bottom line, Goldberg said, was that Dunphy is welcome to submit pieces to The Times, and they’ll be considered on a case-by-case basis, with the above principles in mind.

I asked Goldberg if I could tell Dunphy to give Goldberg a call, and he said yes.

I urge the L.A. Times not to ditch Dunphy simply because he wisely uses a pseudonym to protect his career. If the paper chooses to do so, the readers of The Times will be deprived of a valuable and articulate voice representing a substantial segment of the LAPD rank and file.

P.S. Dunphy tells me that in December, L.A. Magazine will be running an issue called the “Power Issue” that has a list of the most powerful people in Los Angeles. Dunphy is on that list. He thought it was a joke at first — but the folks at L.A. Magazine don’t joke around, baby.

Does the L.A. Times really want to take on one of the most powerful people in Los Angeles? (I say this with tongue in cheek — but there is a kernel of truth there nonetheless.) For their sake — and for all of our sakes — I hope not.

L.A. Times, keep publishing Jack Dunphy.

15 Responses to “Will the L.A. Times Ever Publish Jack Dunphy Again?”

  1. LA Policeman Shot in the Back…

    Okay, not really. I’m just stretching to apply that title to Patterico’s take on the LA Times’ decision not to publish any more pseudonymous editorials by LAPD officer “Jack Dunphy”. Dunphy may be back in the LA Times at some……

    JunkYardBlog (621918)

  2. In addition to being a good tale on its own merits, this story is an interesting sidebar to the ongoing sagas of anonymity, pseudonymity, and sock-puppetry in the world of web-logs.

    People like ‘Jack Dunphy’ may have reasons for keeping their real names out of the limelight. ‘staishu3’ is another example that comes readily to mind.

    As readers here (and our host) have demonstrated, it takes a very determined effort and tech-savvy effort to foil unmasking efforts aided by Google, and whois–not to mention limited-access databases (real estate transactions, locater services, EDGAR, Lexis-Nexis, etc.).

    I’d suppose that it wouldn’t be that hard for one of Brattons lieutenants to ID Dunphy at this point. But as stashiu3 pointed out earlier this week on the site, there may be a distinction between being pseudonymously obscure, and being fully ‘out,’ where that may be interpreted as a red-flag challenge.

    As discovery tools continue to improve, we’ll be seeing more and more of issues like this.

    AMac (b6037f)

  3. I only wish they were as reluctant and “careful” about employing anonymous sources, or accepting stories based on heresay from anonymous sources.

    Dan S (8e10ae)

  4. err, hearsay… PIMF

    Dan S (8e10ae)

  5. “Jack Dunphy the writer” v Thomas Jefferson, who laid his fate & fortune on the line. “Jack Dunphy the writer” v Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who lays her fate & fortune on the line. “Jack Dunphy the writer” v Robert Redeker, who lays his fate & fortune on the line.

    “Jack Dunphy”. Will Commissioner Bratton order him or his loved ones murdered, kidnapped, raped, or robbed?

    No. “Dunphy” is just fearful of being dooced.

    The words of this timorous “Dunphy” because of his pseudonimity have not to be disregarded but to be discounted. What he does has the appearance of a loyal in name only employee giving the bosses he secretly loathes the middle finger in the pocket.

    Ted Monroe (eac4f8)

  6. Ted Monroe, I doubt you’re willing to put your job on the line for any cause, let alone the right to speak the truth, so STFU.

    Lugo (94be29)

  7. Before there were blogs… yay, before there was internet….Dunphy was contributing to the National Review dead tree version, a fact that Ted Monroe is obviously unaware. He is also unaware that Dunphy’s commentary has not always been anti-establishment, but has always been an honest, insightful view into the mindset of the rank-and-file street cop. Perhaps if Monroe wasn’t so fixated on obscene gestures, he’d take some time to read the archival links that Patterico has provided. He’ll find some sterling writing there.

    Anyone who has been in the governmental bureaucracy knows about the hazards of being exposed as a critic of an autocratic dept. head. Nobody can blame him for the pseudonym.

    Do you suppose it’s possible that somebody in City Hall leaned on the LAT in exchange for some favor or other?

    Bill Schumm (33ab73)

  8. Hey Ted,

    The LAPD officer who writes under the Dunphy name lays it on the line daily. He’s a credit to his uniform and worthy of public praise. He has the courage to talk about sensitive internal issues on the force in spite of the potential risk to himself and others. You can be absolutely certain there would be no Jack Dunphy columns once he was ID’d, so it is wisest that he remains anonymous for the sake of we the readers, lest we be deprived of his insight.

    Did your abortive attempts to paint Dunphy as a coward through fallacious comparisons have a real point? Thomas Jefferson and Ms. Hirsi Ali were/are politicians who are hardly in a position to avoid publicity. Robert Redeker is a courageous man who’s outspoken criticism of Islam has indeed put his life at risk, but the comparison is still quite thin.

    Yet you presume Dunphy is fearful.

    What Dunphy writes about through the pseudonym are internal policies which he feels deserve public airing. For all you know, he is a PR officer who speaks publicly all the time in an official capacity. Something to keep in mind is that he isn’t a whistleblower. There’s a strong line separating policies which are subject to criticism and awareness of misdeeds which by law have to be reported.

    So really, the question should be on you. Just what is your objection to Dunphy? That his opinions aren’t credible because he doesn’t identify himself? Patterico, the LAT editors, and select others know who Dunphy is, and his credibility is well established. So what is it?

    Freelancer (cb897a)

  9. Regarding Ted Monroe’s comment: The irony is that, far from being “timorous,” I work as a cop in one of Los Angeles’s most dangerous, violence-plagued areas. I write under a pseudonym because I wish to continue doing so. The LAPD can’t punish me for exercising my 1st Amendment rights, but if I were unmasked I would no doubt be subjected to an organized campaign of false personnel complaints, which the department would then use as an excuse to transfer me “for my own good.”

    As for my loyalty, it extends to only to the citizens I serve and to my fellow cops on the street, not to any individual who happens to be serving as chief. I was here before Bratton got here, I’ll be here after he’s gone.

    Jack Dunphy (b4e6d8)

  10. Mr. Dunphy

    Thank you for your years of service and your writing. They have been invaluable.

    Darleen (03346c)

  11. Ted: FYI, Bratten is a “Chief”, not a “Commissioner”. This is L.A., not NY!

    Jack: Keep up the good work, on and off the streets.

    Another Drew (8018ee)

  12. Jack thanks for your service and excellent articles that taught me a lot.

    You’re a great writer.

    Jim Rockford (e09923)

  13. Shorter Ted Monroe: cops who want to continue to patrol the most dangerous areas of L.A. are cowards, unlike me — a guy who talks tough on the Internet.

    Patterico (de0616)

  14. Maybe “Ted” is a sock puppet for one of those guys at Parker Center. Comeon Ted, ‘fess up.

    I’ve been reading Dunphy for years. Since I dropped the LA Times a few years ago, it matters less to me but it should to the LA Times. Of course, that assumes they know what is the matter with their circulation.

    Mike K (6d4fc3)

  15. The man certainly has a knack for words, and hopefully will continue to be published under whatever name he wants, but this idea that he is anonymous is ridiculous. Patterico knows who he is, a bunch of people at the Times know who he is, and even more fellow officers know who he is just by reading his articles. But no brass know his identity? Rubbish.

    Dean (6db79e)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0718 secs.