Another weekend, another day, no coverage. None. I just don't get it! What's going on that the LA Times choses not to cover this story? I don't want to believe the DK opinion that it's all about corporate media deciding to steer clear of this for business and political reasons. I WANT to believe that we still have somewhat of a free press...and I don't want this story to die, I want it to gain a groundswell in the MSM.
So, after wading through this morning's paper and reading about the latest speculation on the Academy Awards, several articles on producers and stars, several articles on State politics, and of course the usual in-depth coverage of the Lakers and the Nisson Open, I
finally wrote The Letter. I mean, this paper can waste over half a page on Dodger and Angel reports from spring training!
I'm not holding my breath for a response, and I have no illusions that this is an important diary. I'm tired of waiting for this paper to do their job, so like that Kos'er that wrote his paper in Houston, I'll write a letter.
John Carroll, Editor
Scott Kraft, National Editor
L.A. Times
21 February 2005
Dear Mr. Carroll and Mr. Kraft,
As a 40-year reader of the Times I have been waiting with anticipation to see how you would cover the Jeff Gannon/Jim Guckert story as it emerged. I was, and am, interested for several reasons:
· White House Access for "reporters" that are NOT reporters at all; how would the Times, with it's long history of serious news reporting, react to the revelation that someone with daily access was an unqualified fake?
· Why did none of the real reporters sitting with Gannon/Guckert for two years in the White House briefing room call attention to this strange situation?
· The double standard for White House press access: a number of established journalists and columnists have been challenged or denied, yet Gannon/Guckert gets a pass with what appears to be zero qualifications?
· Security issues around access to the White House; how was a person like Gannon/Guckert able to qualify for a hard pass (as it now looks from video captures of press conferences and briefings) with his background? An active gay male prostitute, with outstanding tax violations, and with no journalism background?
· The issue around recent reports of White House-based pay-for-propaganda; does Gannon/Guckert, backed by a political PAC and lobbing "softball" questions that serve the PAC's mission to the press secretary and the President, continue this troubling trend? What does this mean for journalism and fair reporting?
· Of course the sexual issues are also fair game for news reporting. Remember how the blue dress brought months of headlines; there would seem to be the possibility that there is more to the Gannon/Guckert than simply allowing press access to a completely unqualified citizen.
Yet to this day, February 21, 2005, there has been not word one published on this developing issue in the Times. Do a search of your site, as I have done daily. Nada.
Why no coverage? That would seem to be a story in itself. Is it because the story was broken, researched, and reported by a lose-knit group of bloggers? Does this challenge the position of the print media? Is it because of, as has been speculated, the fear you may be feeling that the Times will lose access to the White House and Republican political sources? Is it the perceived conservative demographic position of the LA Times in the Southern California? Do you feel that because of the potential gay sexuality component, the issue is difficult to report and may offend some readers?
As a loyal reader and subscriber I ask you to address this issue--and the issues it illuminates--in an in-depth way. Please report the news.
Thanks and Regards,
-mark
[UPDATE: National Editor responds, below]