A Question About The L.A. Times...and Jill Stewart

[KharmaTrain]

I've just seen an hour on non-stop trashing of the L.A. Times...most notably by some journalist, Jill Stewart, who, for the life of me, is a woman defending a serial sexual assault.

She not only claimed, as others that the Times sat on the Gropinator stories until the last minute (supposedly these stories were in the can - this according to Stewart - up to 7 weeks ago) and refused to investigate a (ONE) similar accusation against Davis back in 1997. This is the first I've heard of this. Any links or credible info here?

What I don't get is the L.A. Times is owned by the Tribune Company, one of the most Conservative publishers in the nation. Does anyone have handy who the Times has endorsed in recent elections?

BTW...I just got a call from our two Repugnican relatives in Orange County...BOTH are voting NO on the recall (they still hate Davis) period, and a YES on McClintock. I wonder how many other "rock-ribbed" Repugnicans like these people will be doing the same.

Cheers

[rucky]

1. Jill Stewart is a good reporter

I remember her doing some great investigative pieces for the New Times (one scathing one on the natural-language reading program). She also does radio commentary if I recall (pardon the pun). Don't know who she's working for now.

It's sport for independent journalists to go after the big papers. It is also possible that the LA times was indeed stifling the story, but broke it because they'd lose their scoop to some other paper.

I would check the archives of the LA Weekly or another local tabloid for info on the Davis incident - maybe she wrote something on it?

She is NOT a right-wing wacko, as far as I can tell from what I've read of her...unless she turned mediawhore in the past year or so.

[tishaLA]

2. No. She has the Davis hit piece with NO verifyable sources

it's all "anonymous" stuff. She says she is a democrat, but she has been doing conservative hit radio every day and preaching the Gospel According to Arnold. And yet she goes after the Times for a report *even Schwarzenegger says is true*?! Gimme a break.

[Karenina]

3. Alles geht um Geld.

.

[stewert]

4. Jill Stewart is a Biased Neocon Hack !

She is a conservative, O'Reilly has her on all the time.

Jill Stewart is a conservative columnist, she has written a bunch of attack articles about Gray
davis. She is not even close to being an objective journalist. Yet she was billed as a syndicated
columnist, and it was never mentioned that she has a conservative bias. She is sometimes referred
to as a neoconservative, so she is a far right conservative.

http://www.oreilly-sucks.com/unfairunbalanced.htm

Maybe at one time she was a fair journalist, she sure aint now.

[Snellius]

5. Jill Stewart appears often on FOX News

Every report or article I can find of hers slams Democrats. She used to write for the New Times LA which I think is defunct. This seems typical:
Grubbing for Booty
Craven California Democrats are demanding unprecedented campaign contributions to ensure single-party dominance of state politics
http://www.library.ucla.edu/libraries/mgi/campaign/2000/cal/primary/caprop/prop25/website/9909/090299.html

[rucky]

6. Jeez Louise...I've Been Out of LA Way Too Long!

I just remember her from the New Times (defunct).

[Woochifer]

7. Sitting on stories is nothing new

Jill Stewart is a former L.A. Times political reporter, and for a while worked for the alternative weekly New Times L.A. I always found her reporting to be very credible, and unlike Fox, actually fair and balanced. The problem with the Arniegroper story is that the Democrats have had a recent history of selective outrage when it comes to this kind of behavior, especially in the case of Bill Clinton. Maureen Dowd's column over the weekend points out the hypocrisy on both sides -- how some social conservatives overlook Arnie's past morality lapses and how feminists looked the other way when all the stories of Clinton's bad behavior sprouted up.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/05/opinion/05DOWD.html?n=Top%2fOpinion%2fEditorials%20and%20Op%2dEd%2fOp%2dEd%2fColumnists%2fMaureen%20Dowd

If the Times sat on the story, it would not be the first time I've seen them do this. I can also tell you from seeing this first hand that news organizations sit on stories all the time. I used to work as an intern at L.A. City Hall, and on more than one occasion, the Times sat on potentially embarassing stories about Mayor Tom Bradley (who was a liberal Democrat). Everybody in City Hall knew the stories already, and sometimes the stories would run weeks or even months after the relevant facts were uncovered and report them as if they were bombshell revelations. It often just came down to a couple of the Times' press corps members, who had an axe to grind with the Mayor's Office, waiting for the moment where their story would inflict maximum damage.

I'm not a recall fan, and I certainly feel that Arnie as the Guv would be an epic embarassment to Cali. But, the timing of this story just reeks. I strongly feel that a vigilant and skeptical media has to serve as a guardian of our democracy, but it's also naivite to believe that personal biases and agendas never enter the picture. I don't think it's a left or right issue with the media (except when you're talking about something as blatantly partisan as Fox News), it's often nothing more than a power play or a personal vendetta.

The L.A. Times' endorsements typically run left-of-center, and to a large degree I feel that the stories they run with are not as constrained by the fear of being called "the liberal media" that seems to dictate how the N.Y. Times frames its stories. Until Otis Chandler took over the paper in the early-60s, the L.A. Times had a reputation for right-wing reporting that suited the Chandler family's agenda. I don't know how the Tribune merger will affect its reporting. Complaints though have abounded that the paper has let its sales/marketing department dictate the reporting.

[diplomats]

8. You make some interesting points

although I don't think liberals defended Clinton to the extent the conservatives do Arnie. They weren't as knee-jerk about it. I also wouldn't be surprised if the Times had the story for awhile. It's ironic, though, that keeping the story till the end meant it came out too late to affect the absentee ballots, which helps Arnie.

[realFedUp]

9. Jill Stewart does rag writing now

She writes for the Pasadena Weekly and calls herself
a Democrat. By her writing I would say she definitely
isn't.

These allegations have been out there for years, in
print and in Hollywood. These are nothing new...all
the LA Times did was to contact those women named in
Premiere Magazine and follow up with one and two sources
who they told at the time of the victimization.

Actually the LA Times story has more credibility
Premiere magazine because it is a more respected source,
because of its method of slow and careful research.

The problem I have with the story is it didn't come
out early enough to educate the absentee voters who
already sent their ballots in.

Jill Stewart coming out today with allegations about
Davis is some of the same objection she has to the
last minute "smears" as she calls them.

I don't take Jill too seriously. Apparently she got
fired from the Times and she still holds a grudge.

[KharmaTrain]

10. Thank You...Great Insight

Letme see if I get some things here...

Stewart worked for the L.A. Times...any reason why she left? Again, if she's making such widescale charges against her former employer, I'd like to know what relationship she previously had.

Yes, I heard the mention that her sources were annonymous, but in a story involving violence shouldn't a victim's identity be protected...especially if that person has been victimized by someone with power and wealth...be it Gropinator or Davis. Thus, I'm having problems with the partisan angle here, however the strident manner of her presentations (from what I've seen over the past couple days) shows more a hatred for Davis/LA Times than it does bringing to light a story of possible abuse. Again, what happened to her original stories and if they were so terrible, why weren't they used o previous campaigns?

The News biz is highly competitive...especially in this story. The LA Times not only has to compete against a dozen large television news operations in the city, but other papers across the state in getting and breaking scoops that are supposed to increase readership. Those who claim the Times waited til the last second to smear Gropinator are doing the typical GOOP hatchet job of shooting the messenger.

Only Bill Press seems to be the only one I've heard all day that seems to be standing up to this last minute GOOP/Rove media blitz. Folks, this is a taste of what we can expect next year.

[realFedUp]

11. I don't the story of Jill's firing from the Times

I just heard she was fired. If anyone has the full
story, please post it.

I think she's looking for some airtime and she's
certainly gotten that on Hardball, Buchanan and Press..
she may be angling for a regular gig. I don't blame
her...she can't be making that much money writing for
free newspapers.

Also, shooting the messenger here is really the main
point that these rightwingers want to make this week. Too bad
that the LA Times isn't the Pasadena Weekly...

[Woochifer]

16. Try to look at it objectively

"Those who claim the Times waited til the last second to smear Gropinator are doing the typical GOOP hatchet job of shooting the messenger."

I think you need to look at this more objectively. I've seen political reporters sit on stories on a regular basis first hand, so my skepticism about the timing has nothing to do with shooting the messenger or somehow forwarding the GOP agenda.

I don't know if the Times sat on this Arnie story until the last minute, but it certainly would not surprise me if they did because I've seen them (and other news organizations) do this before. And those stories were largely a smear job on a liberal Democrat mayor. As an intern, I knew about a potentially embarassing story a month before it broke, and it turned out to be a non-issue after you went further into it. Then another politically embarassing story broke out, and while the Mayor's Office was scrambling to resolve this new issue, the Times reporter ran the canned story, knowing full well that the issue being reported had already been resolved weeks ago. But, it was timed to add fuel to a fire. This practice cuts both ways, and whatever target draws blood, that's the direction that some members of the press corps will fire. There are a lot of reporters trying to make a name for themselves, and if this Arnie story broke a few weeks ago, it would not have the same kind of effect that it's obviously had by breaking loose less than a week before the election.

[newyawker99]

12. Hi Woochifer!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[realFedUp]

13. Welcome to DU

Shooting the messenger in this case won't help
conservative's argument that Arnold is fit for this job
however you want to spin this one.

These allegations aren't new and they aren't going
to go away.

[Snellius]

14. On timing: When should the LA Times have released this story?

After the election? and be accused of not warning voters and protecting a Hollywood star. Months ago? these stories have around for years. The abbreviated period necessitated by the recall made it impossible to verify such allegations any sooner. This is an absurd argument. There is no good or bad time.

[Irishladdie]

15. LA Times

I live in Republican County, Huntington Beach, (I see AHnold signs everywhere, and they make me sick) and I have seen on TV ads from the LA times saying vote NO on the Recall.

[KharmaTrain]

18. Is The LA Times Paying For Ads Against The Recall?

I'm confused with your post.

BTW...I talked to my wife's aunt and hubby in Long Beach...30 year rock-ribbed Repugicans. They are so sick of all of this, they're voting NO on the recall (even though they hate Davis) and YES for McClintock. Supposedly a lot of others are doing the same. Tomorrow could be interesting.

[Snellius]

21. If I were putting down longshot money, I'd put it on McClintock

If people are really so upset about Davis (a testament to the voter apathy or geopolitical feeling of disconnection of most Californians -- I was born and lived there almost 40 years), the only logical vote is No & McClintock. Bustamante would be too much the same.

[Woochifer]

24. I respect a conservative vote for McClintock, even if he's off base

I'm no fan of Davis and most Democrats I know don't like him very much either. But, the recall makes a total mockery of the public process in California. I disagree with just about everything that McClintock stands for, but at least what he's had to say is principled and reasoned for his voting bloc. And unlike Arnie, McClintock has a very clear grasp of the issues. I don't even think Arnie has even looked at the very state budget that he vows to fix (and he's in for a very rude awakening when he see how little discretion there actually is for a governor to fix the budget).

It's ironic that Bustamante has gotten painted into the same breath with Davis, because in a lot of ways they are different and disagree frequently. Bustamante has embraces the liberal wing of the Democratic Party, whereas Davis has been operating as a DLC centrist since at least the 1990s. Perhaps their stands on issues are somewhat comparable, but Davis has always taken the liberal wing of the party for granted. The contribution that Bustamante took from the gaming interests pretty much shot down whatever momentum he had at the start. And Arnie has gotten a free ride with his flippant use of the "special interests" label. Aren't developers and business groups also "special interests"?

[Snellius]

27. When Californians say cut taxes, cut spending they mean

"I'm sick of giving my hard-earned money to illegal Mexicans." A liberal Latino like Bustamante, who promotes universal health coverage for illegals, will have trouble. Arnold's real hook is that Republicans think he can attract Latinos and the lower class without them figuring out that they are the ones who are going to end up paying for their unequal tax cuts and business deregulation.

[realFedUp]

26. No, the LA Times doesn't pay for ads...there are ads in the paper.

enough blaming the messenger for Arnold's problems.

[KharmaTrain]

17. The Hypocisy is glaring

The first thought when I read your post was the Dallas Morning Star's report of a Secret Service agent claiming to have seen Monica and Clinton in the White House movie theater...remember that one? Never substantiated, but it got spread all over the place as gospel in those early feeding frenzy days...and all fanned by GOOP operatives. Many who are feigning outrage at the LA Times now.

Bill Press is the only person I've heard today who has asked your question...isn't this character flaw of a future governor important to bring forth BEFORE the election and not after...citing the holding back of Packwood's groping until after his re-election.

Here in Illinois we had allegations about a Gubentorial candidate, George Ryan, that was squashed just days before the election, only to come out afterward and lead to 4 years of non-stop scandal, that are still going on. The good side is that it's all but destroyed the GOOP in this state.

It's a very legit question the overall worthiness of a candidate so that voters get a full view of a candidate. After all, isn't this person desiring to be a Public Servant? Isn't stepping into that ring make their private lives...especially possible felonies...worth at least discussing, yet investigating.

I can see Ahnold now opening himself up, like Clinton, to frivolous civil suits...and I don't condone those on this thug than I did with Clinton. But there's too much money/fame at stake here. Just like Ms. Stewart, I see a lot of people auditioning for network gigs and grabbing their 15 minutes.

I see the irony here that many who are defending the Gropinator are the same who feigned such outrage at Clinton. I give Drudge credit (damn I need a shower just typing that) for putting the same Clinton filter on Ahnold, but look at the rest. As Bill Bennett would say, where's the outrage...or would "I wouldn't bet on it" more appropriate?

[Snellius]

20. On the Clinton/Schwarzenegger comparison

The hypocrisy cuts both ways but, though no one completely condoned Clinton's behavior, it was the Republicans who were so morally, relgiously, metaphysically outraged, not the Democrats. The degree of hypocrisy is not really of the same degree. Republicans will claim that what is so really shocking about Clinton is that he lied about it. Yeah, right.

[Woochifer]

22. How's skepticism "shallow conventional wisdom"?

I'm simply stating that it would not surprise me if the story was deliberately timed because I've seen it targeted that way before by the Times and other news organizations. And my view was from the inside of L.A. City Hall, three doors down from the Times metro bureau, so I saw exactly how something that was a non-story got canned, packaged, and then delivered in a way that would create as much of a stink as possible before dissipating.

My view of the media was altered by what I witnessed as an intern. I can no longer read any news article without questioning its context, and that context includes the timing. Ironically, my faith in the political system was heartened to some degree by serving as an intern, because I worked with so many bright people who fully dedicated themselves to making their city a better place, despite all of the political chicanery going on around them.

If five days before an election was the only conceivable time that the story could run (which the Times said resulted from seven weeks of investigation), then so be it. But, I'm not so partisan as to believe that the timing is solely coincidental, and that anyone who's open to the possibility that it's a canned story is somehow not thinking into the situation enough. I don't think it's intellectually bankrupt or naive to maintain an open and skeptical mind about the reporting, even if my vote against the recall and against Arnie are not open to discussion.

[Snellius]

23. I apologize. Note I deleted what was too strong a response.

I actually corrected it almost immediately but you're fast on the counter draw. "Shallow conventional wisdom" was not fair. But this whole debate of the timing is really nonsense. It is equally irrelevant whether or not the Times was biased or not. If it was biased and altered the authenticity of the story, that is one thing, but if the Times sees what they consider a tragic mistake about to be made, they have a right and obligation to tell voters in time for it to make a difference.

[Woochifer]

25. No prob

We're actually on the same page. I'm just adding a different angle to the discussion.

[Emillereid]

19. The reporter of the first groping piece was interviewed and

claimed that the piece was not ready and could not have run one day earlier.