Late hits from Big Media
Posted by aogFriday, 03 October 2003 at 18:53 TrackBack Ping URL
I never thought I’d agree with Susan Estrich [via Winds of Change] but she gets to the heart of the LA Times story on Arnold Schwarzenegger’s checkered past:
What this story accomplishes is less an attack on Schwarzenegger than a smear on the press. It reaffirms everything that’s wrong with the political process. Anonymous charges from years ago made in the closing days of a campaign undermine fair politics.
The problem isn’t so much the fact of reporting this story, but the careful timing of it. What official journalistic principle has been upheld by sitting on this story until just before the election? Clearly the point is not to provide voters with relevant information. It’s an unambiguously partisan act against Schwarzenegger.

I want to emphasize that if the LA Times wants to be partisan, well hey, it’s a free country. As it always is on this subject, it’s the sanctimony that is so grating. The LA Times wants the pride and place of being a news outlet while acting like an agitprop group. Sorry, you get one or the other, but not both. Time will tell if the newspaper is right that its readers are too dumb to figure this out.

P.S. Consider this in relationship to campaign finance “reform” laws, which would give outfits like the LA Times enormously greater control over the political process. Kind of a frightening picture for people not favored by the editorial board…

Comments — Formatting by Textile
Robin Saturday, 04 October 2003 at 18:59

You and Susan said it all. I’m betting the people out there are smart enough to see through it. Even if he was as bad as the Times claims, he’d still be preferable to Davis.

End of Discussion