LA TIMES editor wrote back about minimal coverage of Cheney impeachment

[yurbud]

MY EMAIL

TO: [e-mail] , [e-mail] , [e-mail] , [e-mail]

Subject: Why only token coverage of Cheney Impeachment?

Why did articles of impeachment filed against Dick Cheney by Dennis Kucinich only warrant two briefs paragraphs?

Your headlines above the fold today are on legalized abortion in Mexico City, another story on Virginia Tech that is more personal interest than news, and a power struggle in the Baath Party, who aren't a major player in Iraq anymore. Are those more important than articles of impeachment against Cheney? How many front page stories did you do on impeaching Clinton?

When was the last time a vice president was impeached?

When were such serious charges raised against a vice president or president?

Don't you think this warrants a little more coverage given the tax dollars and lives the actions of the Bush administration has cost us?

MANAGING EDITOR'S RESPONSE:

At this point there is no indication that this effort has substantial support. If it does gain momentum we will certainly write a great deal about it. But our job is to determine which stories have the most impact at the time they happen. I do appreciate your views on this and we'll watch the effort closely.

Best,
Leo Wolinsky
(Managing Editor, Los Angeles Times)

[villager]

1. so in essence, they claim to be waiting to see if the Dems leave Kucinich under the bus

on this one...

Of course, perhaps momentum for the impeachment would grow if it was actually covered, and people knew it was happening...

[sinkingfeeling]

2. I think he meant there is no young, missing, blonde woman in the story.

[PSPS]

3. Leo is ... LYING

"...there is no indication that this effort has substantial support.

During Clinton's sham-impeachment, his approval ratings were something like 65%. In other words, there was no "substantial support" for it. Yet The LAT ran innumerable banner headlines about it. In fact, entire news channels were created to cover nothing but The Clenis.

Well, maybe Leo is right but just forgot to complete the sentence. I'm sure he thought that he wrote this:

"At this point there is no indication that this effort has substantial support within the corporate media. If it does gain momentum within our small club of republican media owners, we will certainly write a great deal about it. But our job is to determine which stories have the most impact on our corporate clients at the time they happen, and cover them in a way to maximize our profit potential."

[MonkeyFunk]

6. he means there is no

substantial report in the congress. How many co-sponsors did his bill have?

[MonkeyFunk]

4. Good for him

his response is spot on.

[bemildred]

7. Yeah, I think he's OK.

Not what you'd like, but not snotty, leaves the door open.

[warren pease]

5. No priests, no altar boys, no story. n/t

[mnhtnbb]

23. No blow jobs, no sex. Yawn.

[yurbud]

33. That's what I thought until they ignored Jeff Gannon

male prostitute posing as a reporter, whose a bald guy and Bush loves to touch bald knobs, and Bush calls him by the same nickname as his gay college roommate, and there was a record of this guy checking into the White House when there was no press events and sometimes not checking out.

If it was really all about scandal mongering, they would have been all over that like dingos on a baby.

[yurbud]

8. MY SECOND SHOT

TO: [e-mail]

SUBJECT: Whose support for impeachment of Cheney are you waiting for?

Whose support are you waiting for?

Public support for impeaching Bush is already nearly double what it was for impeaching and removing Clinton at the height of all that hype according to the Wall Street Journal.

Don't regular people like your readers count or do we have to be advertisers or major investors in the Tribune Group?

Article:
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/030606N.shtml

[yurbud]

11. SECOND RESPONSE--I think this is a challenge to let them know we support it.

If the support of the public is there, this will become evident quickly and I can assure you we will cover the story.

[warren pease]

14. Chicken or egg?

If the public gets wind of the story and supports it, then they'll cover it. However, if the LAT and the rest of corporate media don't cover it, how will the public get wind of the story?

This is just about the stupidest circle-jerk argument I've ever heard to disguise the sad fact that, if I want to find out what's happening in my own country, I need to seek out information from sources based anywhere but the US. And this jerk-off perpetuates that model, even as he claims he's just serving the public.

Write him back and tell him roughly 103,000 people from all over the world congregate at DU for one basic reason: They object without reservation to the mere presence of the Bush administration and have eagerly awaited that glorious day when somebody finally gets after them.

We may differ on the means -- some say impeachment is premature or a distraction, and advocate letting the multiple investigations continue to smoke out the perps; others say impeachment proceedings should have begun the day these election thieves set up shop. But I think we're pretty much united around the idea that BushCo must go, their crimes must be publicized, they must be held accountable for these crimes and their toxic agenda must be reversed, one repressive law at a time.

So much for the press and its duty to afflict the comfortable and comfort the afflicted. It's all just whoring for The Man these days. And whores never get Pulitzers.


wp

[TahitiNut]

16. If the impeachment tree falls in the forest and the media doesn't transmit the soundness ...

... will anyone every hear the support?

[eppur_se_muova]

9. "We're not going to cover it until we know it's important."

How will they know it's important? Will they see it on the news or something?

[mnhtnbb]

24. The publisher will tell them what to cover.

[yurbud]

10. I've had letter & email exchanges with these guys before but last time there wasn't

Buzzflash.net, Digg.com, Netscape.com, and other newsrankers where I could flash it around to get maximum blog attention.

[Throwing Stones]

12. My response to their response

I emailed this to the addees you listed:



In response to the recent correspondence between the editors of the LA Times and one of its readers concerning the minimal coverage by your paper of Rep. Kucinich's introduction of articles of impeachment against VP Cheney, I must rebut your assertion that "there is no indication that this effort has substantial support" by calling to your attention the various demonstrations and other actions taking place on April 28, 2007 across the nation

For more info about the national day of public impeachment, please see the following websites (not at all an exhaustive list):

www.a28.org
www.worldcantwait.org
afterdowningstreet.org
www.codepinkf4peace.org
www.democrats.com
www.impeachforpeace.com
www.volunteerforchange.org

and scores of others throughout the country.

Of local interest to the LA Times, protestors will be present at the California Democratic Convention in San Diego this coming weekend, and many groups throughout California are also holding public events to raise awareness about the pressing need to act against this administration.


Regards,

Dan

[mnhtnbb]

22. Protests? Big yawn from the media. Did you see Moyers tonight?

He nailed them on ignoring the war protests.

[yurbud]

25. maybe we need to take a protest dump on the steps of the times

[yurbud]

26. it's a new form of non-violent protest

[SammyWinstonJack]

13. Who died and made him "God"? What arrogance! Who is he too decide what

"news" stories will have "substantial support" or not?

[Throwing Stones]

30. only stories involving the Clenis have "substantial support", apparently /eom

[karlrschneider]

15. It's a Catch-22. Or maybe a chicken-and-egg scenario.

He's right, sort of...the story has no legs because it hasn't been reported...because it has no legs...because it hasn't been reported, ad nauseum.

And the other half of the problem is that about half of Murkins don't care one way or the other. Come to Oklahoma and ask a hundred random people what they think of Dennis Kucinich...you won't find more than 1 or 2 who even have the foggiest notion who he is. Sorry but it is what it is.

[goclark]

17. Good old Rethug Times ~ hate is to tame of a word for the way

I feel about the LA Times/

[depakid]

18. How is it supposed to gain momentum if it's not reported?

The usual corporate media crap.

Like they followed this "rule" when Clinton was president.

[Marr]

19. We'll cover it when people demand to know more. And of course,

they won't know anything at all about it if we don't cover it.

[mnhtnbb]

20. ZERO coverage in my local paper, Raleigh News & Observer

I sent this LTTE

Editor:

On Tuesday afternoon, April 24th, Representative Dennis Kucinich held a press conference regarding
HR 333 which introduces Articles of Impeachment against Vice President Cheney. I could find not one word
in this morning's edition of the News & Observer regarding this news. How on earth could you not
consider such a story newsworthy?

Numerous polls nationwide have indicated support for impeachment of both Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney
if evidence supports the allegations that lies were told to convince Congress and the American people
that the U.S. should launch a pre-emptive war against Iraq.

It's time for the media to stop acting like they are owned by this Administration and start behaving
like journalists. Shame on you for your complicity. No matter how many times a lie is told, it does not make it truth; ignoring
the truth will not make it go away.

[leftofthedial]

21. lying sack of shit

[AtomicKitten]

27. sounds reasonable

:shrug:

[yurbud]

28. One way to prove him wrong: vote this up on Buzzflash.net so a lot of people see it

the last time one of my pieces made it onto the Buzzflash.com home page, I got 3,000 hits in two days.

Maybe a couple more will write this guy and light a fire under their congressman too.

http://buzzflash.net/story.php?id=11750

[Bullwinkle925]

29. I hope you don't mind - but I attatched this thread and sent an e-mail to

Leo Wolinsky challenging them to have some 'balls' and do some investigative reporting a la Bernstein and Woodward.

Pisses me off to have this being discarded or swept under the table by the MSM.

Good on you to have written in the first place.

[yurbud]

32. They have covered some of the important stuff, but usually it's buried in the back pages

the front page seems to follow the lead of TV with a mixture of the obvious, already covered, and inoffensive.

I can't remember the last time I saw a front page, above the fold story of theirs that made me go, "Oh my God! I got to buy the paper!" Usually, I buy it to commemorate some big event like 9/11 or the LA riots, or as part of a ritual when I eat at the local diner.

[malaise]

31. Send him this link and remind him

that the world is watching all of them even more closely these days.
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/btw/watch.html

[Uncle Joe]

34. What came first, the support or the information?

How can he determine whether anyone will support this, if they're not informed about it?

It sounds to me like they will "watch the effort closely" but will not report anything about it unless the American People figure it out for them selves, probably through osmosis.

[Marnieworld]

35. Why wouldn't they at least do a story disecting the Articles validity?

Isn't that like their job? :grr:

I guess that if they did that the validity would be apparent and then it would be clear the Kucinich is right. They'd have to choose sides.

Every newspaper should just have printed the Articles themselves and let them stand on their own.

Anyone who is against him is complicit.

[yurbud]

39. they wouldn't even have to choose sides. the answer would be self-evidently true

[Norquist Nemesis]

36. What a crock! "no indication that this effort has substantial support"

Support from whom? Republicans? Congress? Bush/Cheney?

As I recall, Clinton's impeachment...rather the LEAD UP TO IT, was splayed all over the newspapers and 24/7 on the cables. But it didn't have the support of Americans; it had the support of the Majority and a few Democrats (like Lieberman). Hmmmm...it was still front page news!

Did they run front page stories about Chuck Hagel's criticisms? Hagel was getting support for those comments from Democrats, but not from Republicans and Bush. Hmmmmm

[WinkyDink]

37. Gee, and I just watched "All the President's Men" this a.m.

[yurbud]

46. if it was about reporters today it would be "All the President's Press Releases"

[LibDemAlways]

38. Since it got swallowed up by the Tribune Co., the

LA Times has degenerated to the point where it's not worthy of being at the bottom of a birdcage.

If the Articles of Impeachment against the dickless one get mentioned by the corporate whores at all, it's going to be in the context of "Kucinich is a flake" - which was the meme on MSNBC this morning. The talking head used those exact words.

I'd like to see Moyers Part II on the unrelenting pounding that Dems take from the whores while repukes have been given a free pass.

[yurbud]

40. wow-a flake who was right on the Iraq War from the start.

[yurbud]

41. In fairness to the MSM, some repukes are self-pounding like Newt, Santorum, Delay, Bush...

Let them talk long enough and let people get to know them and they will eventually be deeply disturbed.

That's not the MSMs intent, but it seems to work out that way.

[yurbud]

42. PIC: made it to front page of Buzzflash! Thanks to all who voted (and keep voting to keep it up!)

http://www.buzzflash.com


VOTE:
http://www.buzzflash.net/story.php?id=11750

[Atman]

43. IOW, if it makes the news, we'll cover it.

YOU FUCKING IMBECILE, LEO WOLINSKY! How is it supposed to get support if people don't even know it's happening because DOUCHEBAGS like you don't think it warrants coverage????

:banghead:

.

[merh]

44. respond back to him

Oh, you mean like the way you treated Clinton --- NOT!

lying sacks of shit, send him the Moyer's PBS video, let him see himself discussed in that report, the media that paved the way to war.

[yurbud]

45. I didn't have time to do it on this story yet, but in the past, I checked their archives

to see how they covered stories like when the editor was wrong about how they covered Arnold and Enron.