The Los Angeles Times has a long history of ignoring scandals in LA City and County government. Back when the Otis-Chandler clan ran things, it was often because they had a seat in the smoke-filled room. Nothing much has changed now that Chicago's Tribune Company calls the shots.
A few months back, the LA Daily News began a series on how the Airport, Harbor and Water&Power Commissioners steered contracts to those who had made political donations to Mayor Hahn. The Times said nothing for weeks. Only after the knives came out inside the Mayor's office, and appointees started resigning, did the Times take notice of the scandal. Even then, as in yesterday's item about the federal probe, or today's item on the latest version of Hahn's doomed LAX plan, it was mostly political fallout analysis and retrospective.
In the last two days, the Daily News has run headline articles on how the DWP and Mayor Hahn hid huge planned DWP rate increases from voters in 2002, while claiming that a vote for Valley secession would lead to huge rate increases. (There's an old joke in there someplace.)
The head of the Department of Water and Power said Thursday that Mayor James Hahn was told prior to the vote on San Fernando Valley cityhood that a major increase in water rates was needed and answered: "Not yet, not yet."The LA Times has nothing whatsoever -- not even "Briefly" -- on the issue. One has to think they read the other paper -- at least the headline -- so one just has to wonder why they are ignoring this story. But then ignoring LA scandals is a Times tradition. They will never be the paper they hope to be until they correct this -- the 3rd rate Daily News has them beat once again.
A second DWP official said former Deputy Mayor Troy Edwards -- a central player in the pay-to-play allegations growing out of anti-secession fund-raising -- and other top Los Angeles officials also knew of the rate hike plan by fall 2002 but wanted the information kept secret until after the looming secession vote.
Maybe the "new" Times has adoped the same strategy as CNN did with Saddam in Iraq -- it's more important to preserve access than to actually report on city corruption.
Actually I think the real reason is that the aggressive reporters at the Times are all out to change the world, and can't be bothered with local issues. They know that the LA elite cares little about what happens to the little people in their own city.
Posted by: Dave in LA at May 8, 2004 03:37 AMAnd today I read that John Carrol has noticed something important:
"All over the country there are offices that look like newsrooms and there are people in those offices that look for all the world just like journalists, but they are not practicing journalism," he said. "They regard the audience with a cold cynicism. They are practicing something I call a pseudo-journalism, and they view their audience as something to be manipulated."
He said while much media has ended up "in the gutter," the L.A. Times has a different philosophy and was dedicated to taking the "high road."
...
"I do think that a lot of newspaper people have made a lot of strategic mistakes," he said. "They cut back space on things people really need to know."
So obviously since John isn't one of those pod journalists, you don't need to know about corruption in LA.
The crazy thing is, he has the right diagnosis, just the wrong patient. Physician, heal theyself.
Posted by: Kevin "fun" Murphy at May 10, 2004 09:34 AM