Walter Moore vs. Jim Newton
This email exchange between mayoral candidate Walter Moore and Los Angeles Times Editorial Page Editor Jim Newton may not be the fight of the century but it is amusing and a window into the mindsets of each.
That’s a non-judgmental statement, I’m leaving it to you all to score the match as you see fit, in comments:
Why is the L.A. Times coverage of Jamiel’s Law biased? In a word,
Jamiel’s Law would apply only to illegal aliens in gangs. However,
the L.A. Times has confused its readers by publishing a raft of
articles about the supposed disadvantages of ending “sanctuary
city” protection for all illegal aliens (e.g., day laborers),
rather than focusing on those in gangs.
Want to know why? The company that owns the L.A. Times also owns a
Spanish-language newspaper called “Hoy.” Sales at Hoy would plummet
During the past four years, the L.A. Times has lost 20% of its
daily circulation. Hoy, by contrast, is bullish about the growth of
“Spanish Speaking Hispanics” in
a 42% increase by the year 2525, for a total of 7.3 million.
“Hoy publications,” the company recently reported, “have a gross
weekly distribution of more than 1,375,000 copies nationwide.”
So when you wonder why the L.A. Times hires reporters and editors
who never seem to “get it,” just remember: the newspaper is a
business. Unfortunately, it’s a business that puts its own profits
ahead of the lives of the people of
The publishers are not going to entrust their English-language
subsidiary to managers who might cut sales at their Spanish-
language subsidiary. Instead, the publishers hire reporters and
editors willing to adhere to the “party line,” namely, “there are
no illegal people.”
The L.A. Times should, at a minimum, disclose its conflict of
interest. After all, whenever ABC news reports on the Disney
company, the newscasters always disclose that Disney is ABC’s
parent company. Shouldn’t the Times disclose, when it reports on
illegal immigration, that it is owned by the same company that owns
a Spanish-language newspaper?
This is absurd, and I think you know it.
Editor of the Editorial Pages
Mon Apr 21 2008
Your “coverage” of this issue is absurd.
You go out of your way to attack straw men, distort the facts,
mislead the public about the provisions of Jamiel’s Law.
You’re not running a newspaper; you’re running a propaganda machine.
First, I run our opinion coverage, not our news coverage. And we can have whatever opinion we want on this. If you’re concerned with our news coverage, take it up with those editors.
Second, however: whatever you think of the coverage, to blame it on Tribune’s ownership of Hoy is ridiculous. I don’t give a damn about the effect of this issue on Hoy. I have no idea whether they’ve taken a position. I don’t even know who runs Hoy or how it’s doing — any more than I do about Newsday or the Baltimore Sun.
Criticize all you want. But this argument is just nuts.
Why do you think YOU have the job?
Why do you think the Tribune hired and keeps you instead of someone able to acknowledge that importing gang members from abroad might not be the greatest idea in the world?
And why don’t you let readers decide whether it’s “nuts” by disclosing your conflict of interest? ABC discloses its financial relationship when it reports on Disney. You should likewise disclose your paper’s stake in illegal immigration. Your paper has a vested financial interest in maximizing the number of Spanish-speaking people in
Your editorials, moreover, ARE slanted. The argument that Jamiel’s Law wouldn’t have saved Jamiel Shaw, II is — to use your word — absurd. You claim that because Espinoza’s most recent arrest was by
You’re not a journalist. You’re part of big business’s propaganda program to boost profits. Maybe you don’t realize it. I don’t really care if you do or not. But for you to claim that the Tribune’s multi-million dollar conflict of interest isn’t relevant, well, good luck with that one!