Blogcritics Comments on Gray Davis, Closet Wacko

Comment by Brian Flemming on Gray Davis, Closet Wacko

Sat, 4 Oct 2003 02:51:12 EDT

6 sources all directly spoke to the Times all corroborated by other, named parties vs. 2 sources 1 directly spoke with Jill Stewart 1 spoke through an intermediary neither is corroborated by a named party If you'd like the L.A. Times to lower its editorial standards to Stewart's level, you can send them a letter with your request. If they grant your request, though, they're going to need a lot more paper to print all of the (hundreds? thousands?) of A.S. stories that meet the lower standard. ]]>

Comment by RJ Elliott on Gray Davis, Closet Wacko

Sat, 4 Oct 2003 01:06:39 EDT

So let's see: Gray is a psycho Arnold is a perv Cruz supports a 5th-Column organization And McClintock can't win Why can't McClintock win? Please? Pretty please? ]]>

Comment by Phillip Winn on Gray Davis, Closet Wacko

Fri, 3 Oct 2003 22:49:48 EDT

ME: Goose, meet Gander. GOOSE: No! My feathers are completely different, and the coloration is all wrong! ME: What was that about raising the standard of evidence again? GOOSE: But that's different! It's DIFFERENT! ME: The 1997 sources said they were afraid to come forward, as did the 2003 sources. How is that different? More importantly, what the heck does either issue have to do with job performance, the issue at hand? GOOSE: It just does, that's all. ME: Sorry, buddy, your goose is probably cooked. ]]>

Comment by Brian Flemming on Gray Davis, Closet Wacko

Fri, 3 Oct 2003 22:26:22 EDT

The L.A. Times didn't report on these rumors largely because they didn't meet the standards they used for the Schwarzengroper story. That story used some anonymous sources, but always spoken to directly by the Times and corroborated by named sources. Jill Stewart's 1997 story has one named source for one incident. The other incident is neither directly reported nor corroborated. It's not only anonymous--it's a friend-of-a-friend thing. If you read the L.A. Times story, you'll see that none of the six incidents of Schwarzengroping they report on are based on anything so shaky. The Times editors said they had plenty of other leads about A.S. sexual-harassment incidents, but they couldn't corroborate them to their satisfaction in the seven weeks they had for the investigation (this election doesn't have anything near the lead time that a typical election would--it's not the Times' fault that the story is being published when it is). Arnold's behavior follows a pattern that is confirmed time and again by witnesses not connected to each other or involved with partisan politics. The Gray Davis rumors reported by Jill Stewart simply don't meet that standard. ]]>

Comment by Murphy Horner on Gray Davis, Closet Wacko

Fri, 3 Oct 2003 21:18:10 EDT

I heard this...I think it's terrible. So much for my decision to vote 'No' on the recall. I didn't vote for him the first time anyway. ]]>