You have commented 275 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Home Front
Media Scrutiny of Schwarzenegger Short on Proof
Allegations of sexual misconduct and Nazi sympathies dogged Arnold Schwarzenegger in the final days of California’s gubernatorial recall election.
Most people weren't surprised. Movie star = either grabbing babes or being a homosexual, and since he's a Publican the Dems wouldn't go for that. And he does have a bit of an accent, he's gotta be a Nazi, right? Otherwise he wouldn't have run against a Democrat...
But, supporters of Schwarzenegger, the man who is now governor-elect, say an examination of several stories that appeared in the Los Angeles Times reveals that the paper’s claims were not based on verifiable facts.
No! Thats unpossible!
"In the final week, the Los Angeles Times showed deliberate extreame bias poor judgment in publishing allegations against Arnold that could not be substantiated," said Karen Hanretty, a Schwarzenegger spokeswoman. The Los Angeles Times said it "corroborated" its stories that Schwarzenegger groped or humiliated more than a dozen women over a nearly 30-year period. But in no case did an eyewitness substantiate for the Times any of the tales despite the fact that the alleged incidents took place while hundreds of crew members on movie sets were present.
I might also add that most men with an active libido who're single — I don't think he's been married for 30 years yet — will have at least the opportunity to grope or humiliate some woman and be groped and humiliated in their turn. Add in the fact that his body makes some women's pantyhose roll up and down like window shades, and it's a wonder the Times only found a dozen or so.
As for the important "second source" news organizations often require on sensitive stories, the Times usually used a friend or relative who heard about the incidents afterward from the alleged victims.
This is why courts dont allow Heresay.
A former Times editor defended the practice. "Anonymous sourcing pervades press coverage of things. It is not ideal. The Times made a decision to make unproven alligations judgment. I would support that judgment," said Bob Berger.
Then his lips fell off...
In the closing days before the election, the Los Angeles Times wrote several accusatory stories. On the Thursday before the Oct. 7 election, the newspaper filled the news cycle with a story that headlined "Women Say Schwarzenegger Groped, Humiliated Them." The story included six women, two of whom agreed to be identified. One incident that allegedly occurred in 2000 wasn’t actually news. The account appeared in a magazine and the only witness to the alleged encounter said it wasn’t true.
Translation: The LA Times knew it was a lie and printed it anyway.
Another woman in the story said she was grabbed by Schwarzenegger while working as a secretary in an office. Three people were said to have seen the incident but none was quoted. The victim also refused to identify one witness and instead told the paper to get verification from a friend who had heard about the incident from the supposed victim.
You can ask my friend here. She wasn’t actually there but I briefed her on what to say happened.
On Friday, the Los Angeles Times ran another story titled "Radio Host Tells of Incident With Actor." The titillating details described by the woman whom the Times said allegedly had her leg "fondled" by Schwarzenegger revealed that their thighs actually touched hers and he brushed her ankle 30 years ago.
If that is ’fondling’ then we are all in big trouble.
When Saturday’s paper ran with the story "Three More Women Allege Misconduct," the Times ran a story from a woman who claimed Schwarzenegger pulled her into his bed on a movie set but did not grope her and let her walk away. The paper provided as substantiation her ex-boyfriend’s testimony that he had heard about the story 22 years ago.
Oh yes. She briefed me on this yesterday twenty two years ago and I remember it perfectly!
By Sunday, the Times reduced its headline to "Conan the Vulgarian," and on Monday republished its prior allegations. On election day, the Times ran a story about a stunt double who said Schwarzenegger pulled up her shirt, took pictures and touched her breasts. Two eyewitnesses, however, said the story wasn’t true.
Was that one the hooker? I've lost track...
While the allegations swirled about Schwarzenegger’s behavior toward women, at the same time the Los Angeles Times ran a story with a headline that read: "Schwarzenegger Admired Hitler," suggesting that the candidate held in high regard the Nazi leader and perhaps most hated man in the 20th century. Even after the editors were made aware that the story was inaccurate, the Los Angeles Times perpetuated the allegation by quoting Schwarzenegger opponents
Now that is a unbiased source
who repeated six times the allegation that Schwarzenegger admired Adolf Hitler. As originally published, the quote said, "I admire Hitler for being such a good public speaker and for what he did with it ... like Kennedy had, you know, to speak to maybe 50,000 people at one time and having them cheer, or like Hitler in the Nuremberg stadium. And have all those people scream at you and just being in total agreement with whatever you say," he said. The man who supplied the quote said Schwarzenegger never displayed any anti-Semitic behavior and actually told him that he "did not admire what [Hitler] did with it." Buried inside the Times story is the conclusion that "taken in context the statement about Hitler simply reflects a young man’s fascination with power." Critics of the paper, including Jewish leaders and members of the media, said not only was the story inaccurate, it was a hatchet job.
The LA Times doing a hatchet job? Unpossible!
There is "no reason Schwarzenegger had to endure that. I think it goes beyond the pale. And you know they had to withdraw that almost immediately, but the damage was done," said Joel Kotkin, a former New York Times columnist and Washington Post reporter.
Which was the whole intent...
Kotkin said the problem is that the quote is inconsistent with Schwarzenegger’s actions, including his support for the Simon Wiesenthal Center, an international Jewish human rights group dedicated to preserving the memory of the Holocaust. Schwarzenegger has donated tens of thousands of dollars to the organization.
Also something the Times forgot to mention.....
Fox News contacted four editors of California newspapers around the state. Some supported the Times coverage, others did not, saying the sexual misconduct allegations were too old, ran too close to election day and did not meet a simple journalistic standard. Despite criticism for inaccurate and unsubstantiated depictions of Schwarzenegger, the newspaper did not quit its pursuit of the governor-elect, comparing Schwarzenegger to Hitler after the election in a column headlined "Der GropenFuhrer".
Which is more accuirate - LA Times or Weekly World News?
Posted by:CrazyFool

#4  Guardian West, the so-called LA Times, seems to have no problem with verifiable reports of women being blown the bits on Israeli buses, but let some bimbo yell "groper" a quarter of a century after the fact, and they muster all the sanctimonious outrage they can fake.
This reckless hypocrisy is a sign of desperation. The whole corrupt empire of left-wing pop-culture activism is teetering on the brink of collapse. I look forward to seeing their senior editors begging for change outside porn theaters, and fighting lefty ex-professors for the best spots.
Posted by: Atomic Conspiracy   2003-10-10 10:07:34 PM  

#3  Oh, Im sorry, I misunderstood. I thought the revelations of sexual impropriety was the way the LA Times showed their endorsement of a candidate.
Posted by: frank martin   2003-10-10 5:32:04 PM  

#2  The worst thing is the LA times was very stupid. California had two years to digest the Arnold groping stories since they originally came out when Davis tried to slam Arnold out of the last elections. Arnold warned everyone Davis would start throwing mud, so when it finally came by way of the LA times Davis took the hit. The LA Times hurt themselves, and Davis, and made Arnold into a victim.

Very stupid.
Posted by: Yank   2003-10-10 4:25:30 PM  

#1  I hope they keep it up. It would be a shame to destroy their reputation for Bias & Bigotry™

Posted by: Anonymous   2003-10-10 4:24:56 PM