Comments on: Tony Pierce muzzles Times bloggers over John Edwards.

By: Edwards admits affair, still claims he didn’t father love child « California Faultline

Fri, 08 Aug 2008 19:42:03 +0000

[...] -Scott Martelle at LA Times political blog “Top of the Ticket” has posted the news, the first mention of the affair since the Times editorial told its bloggers not to discuss the subject. [...]

By: edpadgett

edpadgett — Sat, 26 Jul 2008 23:14:01 +0000

With the publisher of the Los Angeles Times, David Hiller, fired on July 14th, oops, I mean he resigned to spend more time with his family, the newspaper is being lead by Gerry Spector and Randy Michaels.

Certainly makes one wonder how many other news worthy stories have been pushed to the side?

This is exactly why cross ownership of media in the same city should not be tolerated, censorship.

By: Sean Bonner

Sean Bonner — Sat, 26 Jul 2008 16:41:12 +0000

I think this brings up an endless list of very interesting topics and questions, a few of which are:

- Are the LAT Blogs actually blogs, or are they just another piece of the Times machine using the term "blogs" to try and market to an audience looking different.

- If they are blogs, what makes them that if entire topics are off limits either because the Times is working on a story or because the Times doesn’t want to be associated with the source of the topic?

- Have there been other topics that the LAT Bloggers have been told they can’t even mention?

- As Markland notes, with Edwards being a potential running mate, any scandal, real or rumored is going to be news and is going to have some impact. It’s a big story and you would think that so long as the source of the info was made clear, this would be a very good topic to look at from many angles. Blogs should have the freedom to do that, no?

- Definitely not a question of what the Times is allowed to mandate, but more what should be mandated and how they are presenting this to the public.

By: doran

doran — Sat, 26 Jul 2008 05:39:50 +0000

There’s little doubt it was a mandate, and a legitimate one if they really are working up a real story about this. The problem came because of Tony’s ham-fisted way of doing things. Quelle surprise!

Simply, he laid down an edict which wasn’t really what the company had in mind. I don’t think they wanted to shut anyone down, but just wanted to make sure no posts would create any problems with their more extensive reporting which (I’m assuming) they have in the works.

Tony still needs a little work on his people skills.

John Edwards is one of my favorite politicians, but I’m afraid this incident is something worth paying attention to, especially given previous statements by him and Ms. Hunter. I don’t care about rumor and salacious details. But the facts of the incident are worth noting. Who knows, maybe Elizabeth set this up.

By: lucindamichele

lucindamichele — Sat, 26 Jul 2008 05:22:39 +0000

Markland, I guess the question is then this–was this on Pierce’s judgment, or was it a mandate to him from higher up? Is it possible that he "knew better" but really didn’t have a choice? I’m trying to give him the benefit of the doubt here. He seems like the kinda guy who’d otherwise be quite a bulldog about pursuing an interesting story.

By: cicicole

cicicole — Sat, 26 Jul 2008 03:02:48 +0000

Yes they should; blogging and unconfirmed rumors dilute the effectiveness of factual reporting. When rumors and opinions speak louder than facts, the news business suffers, and so does the quality of information that we are exposed to as readers. When our news outlets are dumbed down and comprise mostly opinion and rumor, our participatory democracy suffers. As protectors of a participatory democracy, the Times has a responsibility to get the story right and present it as intelligently as they can, and then invite participation for commenting and rumor sharing. They are the news generators and if they don’t realize this and stop diluting their authority by imitating everything they see on the Web, then we all suffer.

By: David Markland

David Markland — Sat, 26 Jul 2008 02:28:09 +0000

Okay, to repeat: THE TIMES HAS EVERY RIGHT TO TELL ITS REPORTERS TO DO WHATEVER IT WANTS. They can edit articles and blogs all it wants. It can be as biased as it wants. Of course it CAN.
Thats not the issue. Its never been an issue.
The question is whether it SHOULD do these thing. And if blogs hold the same weight as articles.
Based on Meredith Artley’s clarification, even they recognize the debate.

By: cicicole

cicicole — Sat, 26 Jul 2008 02:21:43 +0000

The Times, as a corporate entity, has every legal right to censor its blogs. Further, as blogs progressively become what breaks news, the line blurs between blog and article in a legal sense for the paper, and the last thing the Times wants is another Tupac episode. As far as the Times is concerned, blogging is the new journalism–all of their former staff writers were forced to become "bloggers" in a sense. Does it meet reader expectations? No. It’s lame and violates the "freedom of speech" on the Net. I want Obama to cross party lines and choose Mitt Romney as a VP–Romney would balance the economy and health care, and social change and international diplomacy could be Obama’s.

By: David Markland

David Markland — Sat, 26 Jul 2008 02:06:41 +0000

Gloria:
By yesterday morning, the Enquirer had printed the names of its reporters, so it was no longer a blind item. And, as of this morning, Fox News has corroborated the story. Even if not, the story was making waves all over the web. I’d agree that without vetting the story, the newspaper itself shouldn’t print it, but to tell its bloggers not to touch the story is over reaching.
I agree the Enquirer has shady standards. And actually, a former LA Metblogs author won a major settlement against the Times after the printed an article claiming he’d had an affair with an A list actress (who co-sued, and won, for libel, I believe).
And Fox News has a shoddy track record of reporting as well. But so does the LA Times (who killed Tupac?).
And as far as I know, Edwards denied having an affair, not meeting with this woman and her child secretly in the middle of the night.
Also, as reported by Patterico, the Times almost seems to have a policy against covering this alleged affair. Weird.
http://patterico.com/2008/07/25/la-times-censors-bloggers-on-edwards/

Finally, if the argument is that the Times shouldn’t blog about something until its been verified, you need a big whopping lesson in the difference between blogs and straight reporting.

By: frazgo

frazgo — Sat, 26 Jul 2008 01:56:45 +0000

Lucinda, all good points. The right to get published is one I guess I should have been clearer on. The key for me is the ample sources to do it without fear of being censored. A writer working for an employer obviously has to work within their constraints, if they don’t like it of course they can start up their own blog and have at it.