LA Times---More Liberal Bias

[Mcleanhatch]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...005/media_nm/politics_california_newspaper_dc

L.A. Times Faces Anger for Schwarzenegger Coverage
Sun Oct 5, 1:02 PM ET Add Entertainment - Reuters Industry to My Yahoo!



LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - The Los Angeles Times has had about 1,000 readers cancel subscriptions and been "flooded" with angry letters, calls and e-mail protesting its coverage of Arnold Schwarzenegger (news)'s alleged sexual harassment of women, it reported on Sunday.



The newspaper has detailed allegations by a total of 15 women in three front-page stories since Thursday against Schwarzenegger, touching off a controversy that has consumed the final days of Tuesday's recall election in which the actor and former Mr. Universe remains the front-runner.


Schwarzenegger, a Republican, has apologized in a general way for his behavior toward women, while denying the most recent allegations carried by the newspaper in stories on Saturday and Sunday.


He has also accused the Los Angeles Times of working with embattled incumbent Gov. Gray Davis (news - web sites) in a concerted campaign of "puke politics" aimed at derailing his candidacy.


The newspaper has had about 1,000 readers cancel subscriptions and received some 400 phone calls critical of its coverage, "many angry, some profane," as of Saturday, it reported in a story carried inside Sunday's newspaper.


Readers have complained the newspaper singled out Schwarzenegger for critical coverage because of a liberal bias or ran its stories too close to Tuesday's vote, it said.


One reader, Bill Agee, said the newspapers stories were dropped "like stink bombs at the last moment to ruin the momentum (Schwarzenegger's) got."


Los Angeles Times Editor John Carrol was quoted defending the timing of the Schwarzenegger stories, citing the compressed schedule of the recall campaign and the newspaper's critical coverage of both Davis and independent candidate Arianna Huffington, now campaigning against Schwarzenegger.


The newspaper had been working on its initial front-page story for seven weeks and did not receive tips from any of Schwarzenegger's political foes, Carrol said.


Mostly, the newspaper's reporters had just made "cold calls" to people working in the film industry and women listed in the credits of movies starring Schwarzenegger, he said.


On the Schwarzenegger campaign, meanwhile, anger at the state's largest newspaper has become a rallying cry.


Before a Schwarzenegger rally in Modesto, California on Saturday, one speaker, Rob Johnson (news), a radio host, urged the crowd to make the media feel welcome.


"Except for the guy. ... Who's the guy with the L.A. Times? Find him and beat him up would you?" Johnson said jokingly, according to the newspaper.

 

[nefar559]

mclean, in your opinon, where is the bias?

 

[Derek J]

mclean, in your opinon, where is the bias?

I'd like to know too.

 

[proppa]

how come they refused to print the shit about grey davis when he was running. saying it was part of his personal lfie and had nothing to due with the issues.


funny how now it does.

fuck the la times.

 

[nefar559]

how come they refused to print the shit about grey davis when he was running. saying it was part of his personal lfie and had nothing to due with the issues.


funny how now it does.

fuck the la times.

what were they saying?

 

[JsAHogg]

The liberal bias in this situatation is simply this: The LA Times is notorously liberal. THey have had this info on Shwarzeneggar for a long period of time. They waited just 3-4 days before the election to drop it on the public, as a smear move. That's it.

 

[Mcleanhatch]

mclean, in your opinon, where is the bias?

why did they drop this articel 5 days before the vote, when they were sitting on it for 7 weeks.

why didnt they drop simular stories about Drey davis that they have had for years on his shaking an old lady taht was his secratary to the point to where other staffers had to take her to the hospital for stress because so was so scared and stressed that her skin broke out in rashes.

http://www.jillstewart.net/issue1004.html
here is a small excerp from her website

Here's my proof:

Since at least 1997, the Times has been sitting on information that Gov. Gray Davis is an "office batterer" who has attacked female members of his staff, thrown objects at subservients, and launched into red-faced fits, screaming the f-word until staffers cower.

I published a lengthy article on Davis and his bizarre dual personality at the now-defunct New Times Los Angeles on Nov. 27, 1997, as well as several articles with similar information later on.

The Times was onto the story, too, and we crossed paths. My article, headlined "Closet Wacko Vs. Mega Fibber," detailed how Davis flew into a rage one day because female staffers had rearranged framed artwork on the walls of his office.

He so violently shoved his loyal, 62-year-old secretary out of a doorway that she suffered a breakdown, and refused to ever work in the same room with him. She worked at home, in an arrangement with state officials, then worked in a separate area where she was promised Davis would not go. She finally transferred to another job, desperate to avoid him.

He left a message on her phone machine. Not an apology. Just a request that she resume work, with the comment, "You know how I am."

Another woman, a policy analyst, had the unhappy chore in the mid-1990s of informing Davis that a fundraising source had dried up. When she told Davis, she recounted, Davis began screaming the f-word at the top of his lungs.

The woman stood to demand that he stop speaking that way, and, she says, Davis grabbed her by her shoulders and "shook me until my teeth rattled. I was so stunned I said, 'Good God Gray! Stop and look at what you are doing. Think what you are doing to me!'"

After my story ran, I waited for the Times to publish its story. It never did. When I spoke to a reporter involved, he said editors at the Times were against attacking a major political figure using anonymous sources.

Just what they did last week to Schwarzenegger.

Weeks ago, Times editors sent two teams of reporters to dig dirt on Schwarzenegger, one on his admitted use of steroids as a bodybuilder, one on the old charges of groping women from Premiere Magazine.

Who did the editors assign, weeks ago, to investigate Davis' violence against women who work for him?

Nobody.

The paper's protection of Davis is proof, on its face, of the gross bias within the paper. If Schwarzenegger is elected governor, it should be no surprise if Times reporters judge him far more harshly than they ever judged Davis. Jill's original story on Gray Davis' violence against female staffers is at www.windsofchange.net, scroll to Closet Wacko Vs. Mega-Fibber

 

[nefar559]

why did they drop this articel 5 days before the vote, when they were sitting on it for 7 weeks.

why didnt they drop simular stories about Drey davis that they have had for years on his shaking an old lady taht was his secratary to the point to where other staffers had to take her to the hospital for stress because so was so scared and stressed that her skin broke out in rashes.

http://www.jillstewart.net/issue1004.html
here is a small excerp from her website

Here's my proof:

Since at least 1997, the Times has been sitting on information that Gov. Gray Davis is an "office batterer" who has attacked female members of his staff, thrown objects at subservients, and launched into red-faced fits, screaming the f-word until staffers cower.

I published a lengthy article on Davis and his bizarre dual personality at the now-defunct New Times Los Angeles on Nov. 27, 1997, as well as several articles with similar information later on.

The Times was onto the story, too, and we crossed paths. My article, headlined "Closet Wacko Vs. Mega Fibber," detailed how Davis flew into a rage one day because female staffers had rearranged framed artwork on the walls of his office.

He so violently shoved his loyal, 62-year-old secretary out of a doorway that she suffered a breakdown, and refused to ever work in the same room with him. She worked at home, in an arrangement with state officials, then worked in a separate area where she was promised Davis would not go. She finally transferred to another job, desperate to avoid him.

He left a message on her phone machine. Not an apology. Just a request that she resume work, with the comment, "You know how I am."

Another woman, a policy analyst, had the unhappy chore in the mid-1990s of informing Davis that a fundraising source had dried up. When she told Davis, she recounted, Davis began screaming the f-word at the top of his lungs.

The woman stood to demand that he stop speaking that way, and, she says, Davis grabbed her by her shoulders and "shook me until my teeth rattled. I was so stunned I said, 'Good God Gray! Stop and look at what you are doing. Think what you are doing to me!'"

After my story ran, I waited for the Times to publish its story. It never did. When I spoke to a reporter involved, he said editors at the Times were against attacking a major political figure using anonymous sources.

Just what they did last week to Schwarzenegger.

Weeks ago, Times editors sent two teams of reporters to dig dirt on Schwarzenegger, one on his admitted use of steroids as a bodybuilder, one on the old charges of groping women from Premiere Magazine.

Who did the editors assign, weeks ago, to investigate Davis' violence against women who work for him?

Nobody.

The paper's protection of Davis is proof, on its face, of the gross bias within the paper. If Schwarzenegger is elected governor, it should be no surprise if Times reporters judge him far more harshly than they ever judged Davis. Jill's original story on Gray Davis' violence against female staffers is at www.windsofchange.net, scroll to Closet Wacko Vs. Mega-Fibber

the yahoo article stated:

"The newspaper had been working on its initial front-page story for seven weeks and did not receive tips from any of Schwarzenegger's political foes, Carrol said. "

so they have been working on the article for 7weeks, the other issue you have about why doesn't the article state dirt on davis, i dont know. But your proof was some opinion article from a blog (online journal) ... LOL. I refuse to believe that.


how do u know that the cancellation of 1,000 subscription wasnt a political move on Arnold's side? If i go out and write an article on that and post it somewhere on the net, would you believe that?

get better sources.

 

[Derek J]

why did they drop this articel 5 days before the vote, when they were sitting on it for 7 weeks.

why didnt they drop simular stories about Drey davis that they have had for years on his shaking an old lady taht was his secratary to the point to where other staffers had to take her to the hospital for stress because so was so scared and stressed that her skin broke out in rashes.

Perhaps they investigated those stories and didn't find enough to back them up. I can't really say why they didn't print them because I'm not a major factor at the L.A. Times. As far as sitting on the Arnold story for 7 weeks, I don't know about that either for the same reasons, but do you think Arnold would have reacted differently if they dropped it several weeks before the election?

 

[Mcleanhatch]

But your proof was some opinion article from a blog (online journal) ... LOL. I refuse to believe that.

this lady worked in conjuction with others at the LA Times around 1997 and said they they were also had a story on Davis but that the editors in charge said that they would not put ou tdirt on a heavy hitting candidate when their sources were anonymous. so why did they go with the original story on Arnold considering 4 of the 6 were anonymous and one had major holes in her story that were contradicted by other people in the room at the time she said she was groped.

this lady jill stewart was all over the mainstream media all weekend talking about how the LA Times canned the Grey Davis story.

how do u know that the cancellation of 1,000 subscription wasnt a political move on Arnold's side?

the LA Times came out and said that they had lost over a 1000 subscriptions, not the Arnold camp. so you know damn well that when the LA Times comes out and says that they lost 1000 subscriptions its closer to 5000 only they wanted to downplay it.

 

[nefar559]

this lady worked in conjuction with others at the LA Times around 1997 and said they they were also had a story on Davis but that the editors in charge said that they would not put ou tdirt on a heavy hitting candidate when their sources were anonymous. so why did they go with the original story on Arnold considering 4 of the 6 were anonymous and one had major holes in her story that were contradicted by other people in the room at the time she said she was groped.

this lady jill stewart was all over the mainstream media all weekend talking about how the LA Times canned the Grey Davis story.



the LA Times came out and said that they had lost over a 1000 subscriptions, not the Arnold camp. so you know damn well that when the LA Times comes out and says that they lost 1000 subscriptions its closer to 5000 only they wanted to downplay it.

how do u know that the cancellation of 1,000 subscription wasnt a political move on Arnold's side? If i go out and write an article on that and post it somewhere on the net, would you believe that?

get better sources.

the bottom line is get better sources

 

[shep]

you conservatives act like republicans don't do the same thing.....

you go after clinton for getting a hummer in the white house, but don't do anything for a president who lies about war, takes us to war, lies more, oh and did i mention the fact that bush has ties to the entire bin laden family and let the members of the bin laden family leave the us the days after 9/11, when no one was allowed to fly?

hmmmm... but that is ok, just don't get a hummer in the whitehouse

 

[Mcleanhatch]

you conservatives act like republicans don't do the same thing.....you go after clinton for getting a hummer in the white house

first off we didnt go after him because he did that, we went after him for lying about it to the people of America to thier face. because he had raped Juanita Brodderick, because of the White Water scandle, because of Vince Foster, because of Paula Jones

but don't do anything for a president who lies about war, takes us to war, lies more,

i believe that what he said was true and so do a majority of Americans.

and there is no proof that he lied about anything. so

 

[nefar559]

first off we didnt go after him because he did that, we went after him for lying about it to the people of America to thier face. because he had raped Juanita Brodderick, because of the White Water scandle, because of Vince Foster, because of Paula Jones



i believe that what he said was true and so do a majority of Americans.

and there is no proof that he lied about anything. so

majority? are you sure?

 

[MizeryU]

im sure hes WRONG

but im sure there are some shady bullshit sources that will back up he bullshit there always is