If Arnold Gropes Women, Davis Shoves Them Around: The Untold LA Times Story - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Lebell · 10-07-2003, 12:45 AM

My big beef here is biased reporting, in this case apparently by the LA Times. I am angry...no...furious at those who are willing to manipulate facts and withhold information from us for their own political ends.

We rely on journalists to present ALL the facts, not just the ones that they favor politically.

In this case, they are reporting unsubstantiated allegations at the 11th hour on Schwarzenegger while they SAT on what I consider to be equally reprehensible charges against Davis.

Conservative or Liberal or somewhere inbetween, NO ONE can make an informed decision without all the facts.

-------------------------------------------
http://www.dailynews.com/Stories/0,1...676763,00.html

Why wasn't Davis investigated too?

By Jill Stewart

I couldn't have been more shocked to see the lurid stories about Arnold Schwarzenegger and the things several women allege he uttered or did to them. But it wasn't over the allegations, which I had read much of in a magazine before. I was most shocked at the Los Angeles Times.

Some politicos dub the Thursday before a big election "Dirty Tricks Thursday." That's the best day for an opponent to unload his bag of filth against another candidate, getting maximum headlines, while giving his stunned opponent no time to credibly investigate or respond to the charges.

It creates a Black Friday, where the candidate spends a precious business day right before the election desperately investigating the accusations, before facing a weekend in which reporters only care about further accusations that invariably spill out of the woodwork.

Dirty Tricks Thursday is not used by the media to sink a campaign.

Yet the Times managed to give every appearance of trying to do so. It's nothing short of journalistic malpractice when a paper mounts a last-minute attack that can make or break one of the most important elections in California history. The Times looked even more biased by giving two different reasons for publishing its gruesome article at the last minute.

Now, there's no time left before the election to separate fact from fiction regarding incidents that happened as long as 20 and 30 years ago.

I should disclose here that I know one of Schwarzenegger's accusers. She is a friendly acquaintance. I have no idea whether she was actually man-handled.

Is it possible that my acquaintance told friends a tall tale, after meeting Schwarzenegger, because back then it made a young woman terribly exotic if one of the hottest beefcakes in the world wouldn't keep his paws off you?

I have no idea.

Or, could she be telling the truth?

I have no idea.

And neither does the Los Angeles Times.

If the Times were a tabloid, this would hardly matter. But the newspaper is influential at times, and claims it has high standards. In this case, the paper gave in to its bias against Schwarzenegger:

Here's my proof:

Since at least 1997, the Times has been sitting on information that Gov. Gray Davis is an "office batterer" who has attacked female members of his staff, thrown objects at subservients and launched into red-faced fits, screaming the f-word until staffers cower.

I published a lengthy article on Davis and his bizarre dual personality at the now-defunct New Times Los Angeles on Nov. 27, 1997, as well as several articles with similar information later on.

The Times was onto the story, too, and we crossed paths. My article, headlined "Closet Wacko Vs. Mega Fibber," detailed how Davis flew into a rage one day because female staffers had rearranged framed artwork on the walls of his office.

He so violently shoved his loyal, 62-year-old secretary out of a doorway that she suffered a breakdown and refused to ever work in the same room with him. She worked at home, in an arrangement with state officials, then worked in a separate area where she was promised Davis would not go. She finally transferred to another job, desperate to avoid him.

He left a message on her phone machine. Not an apology. Just a request that she resume work, with the comment, "You know how I am."

Another woman, a policy analyst, had the unhappy chore in the mid-1990s of informing Davis that a fund-raising source had dried up. When she told Davis, she recounted, Davis began screaming the f-word at the top of his lungs.

The woman stood to demand that he stop speaking that way, and, she says, Davis grabbed her by her shoulders and "shook me until my teeth rattled. I was so stunned I said, 'Good God, Gray! Stop and look at what you are doing. Think what you are doing to me!"'

After my story ran, I waited for the Times to publish its story. It never did. When I spoke to a reporter involved, he said editors at the Times were against attacking a major political figure using anonymous sources.

Just what they did last week to Schwarzenegger.

Weeks ago, Times editors sent two teams of reporters to dig dirt on Schwarzenegger, one on his admitted use of steroids as a bodybuilder, one on the old charges of groping women from Premiere Magazine.

Who did the editors assign, weeks ago, to investigate Davis' violence against women who work for him?

Nobody.

The paper's protection of Davis is proof, on its face, of gross bias. If Schwarzenegger is elected governor, it should be no surprise if Times reporters judge him far more harshly than they ever judged Davis.

seretogis · 10-07-2003, 02:31 AM

Wow, that is disgusting.

The_Dude · 10-07-2003, 04:16 AM

ok, got some more proof on the battery?

we all know what arnold did cuz he didnt hold anything back in the interview (no holes barred he

).

seretogis · 10-07-2003, 04:39 AM

I think you are missing the point of the story.

Kadath · 10-07-2003, 05:40 AM

A major newspaper with political bias?! Say it ain't so! Biased reporting is everywhere. This is just as bad as say, Fox News. Or the Washington Times. It is disgusting. And as common as dishonest politicians.

ctembreull · 10-07-2003, 11:18 AM

Press Release at Georgy Russell's Campaign Website

Gubernatorial Candidate Roughed up At Arnold Rally

Gubernatorial candidate Georgy Russell was pushed, shoved, hit and kicked yesterday by supporters of Arnold Schwarzenegger at a rally in Pleasanton CA. She was repeatedly called a "bitch" and one of the Arnold Supporters wrote on her clothing with a permanent marking pen. The felonious abusers, who claimed to be provoked by remarks from Russell, were near equal numbers of men and women and no one during the incident came to Russell's aid. Schwarzeneggar and his wife Maria Shriver witnessed the attack and neither said or did anything to stop the abuse.

Russell, while disgusted with the behavior, thinks Arnold and his supporters deserve each other. "Some of Arnold's supporters apparently do not hesitate when it comes to using violence to accomplish their goals. It's not surprising that they support and defend a candidate who has manifested poor judgment and aggressive behavior most of his adult life. The behavior exhibited by Arnold's supporters is not simply an aberration, it is an MO that has it's roots at the top; it is reminiscent of the behavior of the thugs that were bussed in by Republicans during the Florida recount to perform much the same role as the bullies of yesterday and while that is no surprise to me I am nonetheless sickened by it all. This bully mentality was exhibited by Arnold in the debate in his rude treatment of Arianna Huffington and that the press offered little to no criticism of his behavior opened the door wide and gave a green light to his supporters to follow suit."

This trend towards violence is becoming a near prevailing attitude in the Schwarzenengger camp. At the Modesto stop, the emcee suggested that someone find the LA Times reporter and "beat him up." In Pleasanton, Arnold supporters blocked cameras to keep photographers from taking shots of Code Pink protesters.

Russell escaped with only minor bruises and scratches and in her now trademark wit she said of the fan who wrote on her clothing. "I find it quite ironic, and somewhat entertaining, that Arnold's fan used his pen to cross out on my shirt 'Brains, Beauty, Leadership,^Ò all traits Arnold himself lacks."

Attached is an email from a witness to the attacks, apologizing for the abusive behavior of Arnold supporters, sent to the Georgy for Governor campaign this morning.

... The email is available via the link. What we have is the worm turning here, but this time it's not just the candidate, but the candidate's supporters. It seems that Schwarzenegger has drawn quite a few like-minded people to his cause.

Frankly, I'm repulsed by this whole entire process. Davis is no great shakes, but Arnie's a nightmare waiting to happen. His campaign is being run by Pete Wilson, possibly the most reviled governor in California history - even more so than Davis. He's linked directly to Karl Rove. He has met at least once with Ken Lay to discuss ending the state's attempts to force Enron and other power companies to repay the $9 billion in overcharges reaped during the summer of 2001.
Trust me, I could go on at great length about how Schwarzenegger is potentially the worst thing ever to happen to California - and I wouldn't once have to refer to his character.

Think Davis is bad? You haven't seen bad. But you will - and soon - if Arnold takes the state house. I'm comforted only by the knowledge that he'll almost certainly be recalled within six months. As for me, I think it's time to start looking for places other than California to live.

Lebell · 10-07-2003, 11:34 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ctembreull
Press Release at Georgy Russell's Campaign Website

Gubernatorial Candidate Roughed up At Arnold Rally
*snip*

The referenced email:

Quote:

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2003 06:28:26 EDT
To: georgy@georgyforgov.com
Subject: Oct. 4 Arnold rally

I was at the Arnold Schwarzenegger rally today (Oct. 4), and saw a one of your supporters yelling at Arnold, calling him a groper as well as a lot of other things. Although it is well within her rights to do this, I don't agree with this method of trying to get your point across, as it is rude and inconsiderate of others trying to listen to what Arnold had to say. I then saw her getting pushed around throughout the crowd, then I saw someone write something on her back. I tried to make my way over there to stop people from harming her anymore but, she had already made her way to another part of the crowd that wasn't as hostile. I would like to apologize for the actions that some of the other Arnold supporters took in trying to shut her up. I haven't yet made up my mind as to who I'm voting for on Tuesday but, because this woman seemed so passionate about this campaign and took that kind of abuse to get her point across, all the while keeping her chin high. I will read through your website and see what you have to offer this state.

P.S. was that woman OK? Did she get hurt at all?

I have a few questions/comments:

-If this was a major incident, why didn't she report it to the police?
Or why wasn't it reported by more people? Or why didn't it make a news report other than her own website?

-Was it her or was it her supporter? The email indicates it was a supporter.

-If it was her, why is she, a candidate for governor, in the crowd at an Arnold rally shouting at him?

-While being shoved and marked on is bad, so is going to a political rally and shouting invectives. If I did that, I would expect to get shoved too.

-What is the point of posting this? Are you blaming Arnold for the actions of some supporters? Are you saying because Arnold's supporters allegegdly shoved some woman, it is ok for Gray Davis, the Governor of California to shove women?

-What does this story have to do with the dishonest reporting practices of the LA Times?

eple · 10-07-2003, 11:50 AM

guess we really need to get tha whole World Watch Media Idea thingie up and going. Was some smarty-international worldwide neutral media watch organization proposed in some article in Le Monde the other day. Unbiased news is gold in the coming communication age. I only have it on paper, anybody got some links?

Phaenx · 10-07-2003, 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kadath
A major newspaper with political bias?! Say it ain't so! Biased reporting is everywhere. This is just as bad as say, Fox News. Or the Washington Times. It is disgusting. And as common as dishonest politicians.

Fox News reported both stories, they employ a good many liberals and have many liberal guests on their programs that put out an intelligent liberal viewpoint.

I don't have a subscription to the L.A. Times but I hear a lot of bad things that are apparently true, Fox gets a lot of flak I don't think they deserve but it comes with the territory. I think what the L.A. Times does is far worse then what Fox is accused of.

little limey · 10-07-2003, 02:24 PM

I don't see how the claim against arnold is more true than that of Davis. I don't see hard proof supporting either claim.

Kadath · 10-07-2003, 03:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Phaenx
Fox News reported both stories, they employ a good many liberals and have many liberal guests on their programs that put out an intelligent liberal viewpoint.

Name their liberal employees. Please don't argue Fox is balanced. Please. We can go round and round about this, but for me to say the LA Times is on the same level as Fox is a pretty damning statement in my opinion.

ctembreull · 10-07-2003, 06:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kadath
Name their liberal employees.

And Alan Colmes doesn't count as a "liberal" in this context.

Food Eater Lad · 10-07-2003, 06:49 PM

I would say being a racist seperatist is far worse than being a groper.

ctembreull · 10-07-2003, 06:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Lebell
If this was a major incident, why didn't she report it to the police?[/B]

Probably because there would be absolutely no result from such a report. I doubt the individual in question could ID her assailants effectively. Tell me, Lebell. If a crime is committed and nobody reports it, is it still a crime?

Quote:

Or why wasn't it reported by more people? Or why didn't it make a news report other than her own website?

It was an action by Arnie supporters... right in the middle of a larger crowd of Arnie supporters. There's this other thing, too: just because something isn't reported doesn't mean it didn't happen. I somehow don't see you as one to get all your news from pre-packaged mass-media sources, so you most likely already know this. FWIW, it's been reported... just not in the major outlets. Thing is, I don't know if it's true. But it's infinitely better-documented than the Davis story is...

Quote:

Was it her or was it her supporter? The email indicates it was a supporter.

I'd happily go look this up, but I frankly can't be arsed. The impression I got was that it was Ms. Russell herself - the emailer thought it was a supporter, but the emailer likely didn't recognize Ms. Russell, if it was in fact her.

Quote:

If it was her, why is she, a candidate for governor, in the crowd at an Arnold rally shouting at him?

Well, he wouldn't debate unless given the questions beforehand; perhaps she wanted to see if she could convince him to an impromptu one. Perhaps she just happened to find herself at an Arnie rally. Perhaps she was just loudly disagreeing with the things he said. Perhaps she was doing opposition research. Does it really matter? The particulars of how she came to be there are not relevant.

Quote:

While being shoved and marked on is bad, so is going to a political rally and shouting invectives. If I did that, I would expect to get shoved too.

I'm sorry your expectations of the political process are so low. Tell you what. When Arnie gets recalled, and if I'm running for Governor, you can come to my rallies and disagree as loudly as you like. I personally guarantee that you won't be touched. The plain fact is that simply disagreeing with the majority in that place and time did not warrant a beat-down by that majority. That is not How America Works. Or, at least, it's not supposed to be How America Works.

Quote:

What is the point of posting this? Are you blaming Arnold for the actions of some supporters? Are you saying because Arnold's supporters allegegdly shoved some woman, it is ok for Gray Davis, the Governor of California to shove women?

I was expecting someone to ask this question; I wasn't expecting it to be you. The point is that for every allegation one side has, the other side has a counterallegation. If you read the last part of my post, you'll note that I expressed my concerns with Schwarzenegger that had nothing whatsoever to do with his character. I apologize if my point was too subtle. I'll explain a bit more in response to your last question.

Quote:

What does this story have to do with the dishonest reporting practices of the LA Times?

Everything, Lebell. Everything. You see, the LA Times story was not just dishing up fresh dirt - they were taking stories that have been around for decades and researching them, searching to see if they were true. Like most CA residents, the LAT reporters had heard the rumors swirling about that Arnie was a serial harrasser. To their credit, they investigated. They found the women who had made the charges. Ten of the fifteen who came forward gave their names - took the allegations from anonymous to very, very nonymous (pardon the phrase). In short, these stories were an example of taking old rumors, researching them, finding the sources of the rumors, and getting their stories and names into the public record. The investigation took them seven weeks.

On the other hand, Lebell, we have the author of the story you posted. How many accusers have given their names in that story? It's not new, mind - it's a couple of years old. The original author of the Davis story claims two sources, both of whom are anonymous. Even more interestingly, one reportedly refuses to speak to the media. Meaning that the original Davis story author took one anonymous source and anonymous acquaintance of another, putative anonymous source and churned out a retaliatory story in less than a week. Let me repeat that: The author did not even talk to one of her supposed sources.

And you create a thread for this to protest the biased journalism of the L.A. Times? I think, Lebell, you've overstated the case somewhat. Actually, you've overstated it by a country mile. But don't take my word for it. Here's the links to the stories:

LA Times Arnold Story #1
LA Times Arnold Story #2
Free Republic Davis Story

I report, Lebell. You decide. My error was in adopting the subtle tactics I did, and I apologize; I won't make that mistake again. Not here, anyway.

Lebell · 10-07-2003, 08:19 PM

ctembreull,

To be honest, I expected a more logical argument from you.

Really, she didn't report it because there would be no result? Maybe she just "found" herself at an Arnold rally? The Times had Arnold allegations for years that they researched (but just happened to release days before the election) vs Davis allegations that had been around for years that they brushed off? If I'm at your rally mouthing off you "guarentee" that no one will shove me?

/shakes head

Ok, whatever.

Kadath · 10-07-2003, 08:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ctembreull
And Alan Colmes doesn't count as a "liberal" in this context.

You mean Alan Colmes, don't you?

Phaenx · 10-07-2003, 10:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kadath
Name their liberal employees. Please don't argue Fox is balanced. Please. We can go round and round about this, but for me to say the LA Times is on the same level as Fox is a pretty damning statement in my opinion.

How is Colmes not a Liberal? He is, but I'll name others too. Just about every show with more then one person has a liberal to make things interesting though:

Juan Williams
Mort Kondracke
Lauren Hill
Steve Doocy
Geraldo Rivera
Allen Colmes

Those are the anchors, there was a bunch more but I didn't know who they were, plus I know I missed 3 people from one show I can't find. That right there is maybe 30-40% of the political commentators (business people and unbias anchors that pop up and say whatever about whoever and you never see them again aside). Then there's the news contributers like that blonde lady with the scratchy voice I didn't include either.

Kadath · 10-08-2003, 05:11 AM

Colmes describes himself as "really very moderate."
Going through the Fox News day:

Steve Doocy is on "Fox and Friends," a four person program. None of the other people on your list are on that program, so I guess it's 3 on 1? On the weekend it's a three-person program, and none of those hosts are on your list.

Fox News Live has six anchors and is on for six hours, 25% of Fox News' day. None of them are on your list.

Day Side with Linda Vester -- she's not on your list.

Studio B with Shepard Smith -- not on the list.

Your World with Neil Cavuto -- not on the list...

It goes on like this.

In fact, looking at the "named" shows, none of the named people are on the list, with the notable exception of Alan Colmes, who really isn't pulling the collective weight of those six liberals you listed. I grant that FNC employs liberals. I imagine they are off mopping out toilets when it comes time to spin the news.

ctembreull · 10-08-2003, 06:34 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Lebell
ctembreull,

To be honest, I expected a more logical argument from you.

I think you didn't read far enough into my reply, then. The point to my replies to your questions regarding Georgy's press release was intended to convey: why does it matter? Is there somehow some mitigating circumstance for the crowd's behavior based upon the was Ms. Russell came to be in that place at that time? Most of your questions, save the last two, were completely and totally irrelevant to the point at hand, which I detailed near the end of my post. The summary:

"While the LA Times may have released their article at a questionable juncture, it was in no way, shape, or form on the eve of the election. Fact is, they spent seven weeks (between Arnold's candidacy announcement and the release) researching and writing the story. And it shows - the story is well-sourced and corroborated, and names ten of its fifteen accusers. The Davis attack story, by contrast, uses two anonymous sources, one of which the writer didn't even talk to. The story I posted was only marginally better-sourced than the Davis story - a first-person account with lots of details missing and only a sketchy email as a partial corroboration. The goal was to see just how what your standards were for uncorroborated stories and anonymous or little-known sources.

And now I'm even more curious than ever to find out, as I note that you apparently either a) didn't read that portion of my reply, or b) had no response.

I'm damned curious.

Lebell · 10-08-2003, 11:38 AM

ctembreull

No, it wasn't clear that that you were attacking the credibility of the reporter by posting your story.

I checked out the LA Daily News as well as Jill Stewart and from what I can see, they are both legit. Also, it seems she has documented her sources pretty well and could name names if necessary. After all, it is fairly easy to track down Davis' office staff and former personal secretary.

From Jill Stewart, preface to the original story:
Closet Wacko Vs. Mega-Fibber

Quote:

Note: Since this story, I have interviewed K. and published subsequent columns about these incidents. She did go back to work but with elaborate rules in which she never had to work in the same room with Davis. She finally sought a transfer because she couldn't bear being around him and facing another possible attack.

Whereas this Russell woman is reporting on her own experience with no cooboration from anyone else, i.e. anonymous "shovers" in a crowd.

Maybe you don't see a difference, but I do and that is why I saw (and still see) no relevence of your post to this question.

It also appears that you failed to do some research of your own before posting and making your comparison.

Lebell · 10-08-2003, 12:08 PM

For ctembreull:

http://www.latimes.com/news/custom/s...ch3oct03.story

----------------------------------------------

A Deplorable October Surprise

By Susan Estrich

So this is the October surprise? The Los Angeles Times headline that Arnold Schwarzenegger groped and humiliated women?

None of the six women interviewed by The Times filed legal charges. Four of the six were quoted anonymously. Of the two who were named, one, a British television hostess, had told her story to Premiere magazine years ago, and it has been widely known and largely ignored. The other recounts an alleged incident of fondling at Gold's Gym nearly 30 years ago.

The anonymous incidents occurred on movie sets and consist of touching a woman's breast in the elevator, whispering vulgarities and pulling a woman onto his lap. Though emphasizing that not everything in the stories was accurate, the candidate responded Thursday with an apology: "Yes, it is true that I was on rowdy movie sets and I have done things that were not right which I thought then was playful, but now I recognize that I offended people." And he pledged to treat women with respect if elected.

As a professor of sex discrimination law for two decades and an expert on sexual harassment, I certainly don't condone the unwanted touching of women that was apparently involved here. But these acts do not appear to constitute any crime, such as rape or sodomy or even assault or battery. As for civil law, sexual harassment requires more than a single case of unwelcome touching; there must be either a threat or promise of sex in exchange for a job benefit or demotion, or the hostile environment must be severe and pervasive.

But none of these women, as The Times emphasizes, ever came forward to complain. The newspaper went looking for them, and then waited until five days before the election to tell the fragments of the story.

What this story accomplishes is less an attack on Schwarzenegger than a smear on the press. It reaffirms everything that's wrong with the political process. Anonymous charges from years ago made in the closing days of a campaign undermine fair politics.

Facing these charges, a candidate has two choices. If he denies them, the story keeps building and overshadows everything else he does. Schwarzenegger's bold apology is a gamble to make the story go away. It may or may not work.

But here's my prediction, as a Californian: It's too late for the Los Angeles Times' charges to have much impact. People have made up their minds. This attack, coming as late as it does, from a newspaper that has been acting more like a cheerleader for Gray Davis than an objective source of information, will be dismissed by most people as more Davis-like dirty politics. Is this the worst they could come up with? Ho-hum. After what we've been through?

To his credit, Schwarzenegger apologized for "behaving badly." So should the Los Angeles Times.
_ _ _

Susan Estrich, a professor of law and political science at USC, is the author of "Sex and Power" (Riverside Press, 2001). She was national campaign manager for Democratic presidential nominee Michael Dukakis in 1987-88.

Phaenx · 10-09-2003, 11:26 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kadath
Colmes describes himself as "really very moderate."
Going through the Fox News day:

Steve Doocy is on "Fox and Friends," a four person program. None of the other people on your list are on that program, so I guess it's 3 on 1? On the weekend it's a three-person program, and none of those hosts are on your list.

Fox News Live has six anchors and is on for six hours, 25% of Fox News' day. None of them are on your list.

Day Side with Linda Vester -- she's not on your list.

Studio B with Shepard Smith -- not on the list.

Your World with Neil Cavuto -- not on the list...

It goes on like this.

In fact, looking at the "named" shows, none of the named people are on the list, with the notable exception of Alan Colmes, who really isn't pulling the collective weight of those six liberals you listed. I grant that FNC employs liberals. I imagine they are off mopping out toilets when it comes time to spin the news.

Could have sworn Lauren Hill was on that show, I think they have a guest host every now and then too. I have my suspicions about Shephard Smith, he doesn't say who he votes for and never really gives opinions but the way he argues with Hannity sometimes makes me wonder. Cavuto is a business guy, he hates the French though. Vester I don't know about, I don't like her so I don't watch her, I'm not sure what she is.

Also, Fox news live was that show I couldn't remember, if it's the show with the bearded pink shirt guy. It probably is because there's an assload of people on it. I don't know what you mean by pulling weight (I'd think having a reasonable Liberal present giving opinions and talking is enough) but he yells a lot. There isn't really any show that has a group of people who are all conservative, that would be boring.

10-07-2003, 12:45 AM	#1 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	If Arnold Gropes Women, Davis Shoves Them Around: The Untold LA Times Story My big beef here is biased reporting, in this case apparently by the LA Times. I am angry...no...furious at those who are willing to manipulate facts and withhold information from us for their own political ends. We rely on journalists to present ALL the facts, not just the ones that they favor politically. In this case, they are reporting unsubstantiated allegations at the 11th hour on Schwarzenegger while they SAT on what I consider to be equally reprehensible charges against Davis. Conservative or Liberal or somewhere inbetween, NO ONE can make an informed decision without all the facts. ------------------------------------------- http://www.dailynews.com/Stories/0,1...676763,00.html Why wasn't Davis investigated too? By Jill Stewart I couldn't have been more shocked to see the lurid stories about Arnold Schwarzenegger and the things several women allege he uttered or did to them. But it wasn't over the allegations, which I had read much of in a magazine before. I was most shocked at the Los Angeles Times. Some politicos dub the Thursday before a big election "Dirty Tricks Thursday." That's the best day for an opponent to unload his bag of filth against another candidate, getting maximum headlines, while giving his stunned opponent no time to credibly investigate or respond to the charges. It creates a Black Friday, where the candidate spends a precious business day right before the election desperately investigating the accusations, before facing a weekend in which reporters only care about further accusations that invariably spill out of the woodwork. Dirty Tricks Thursday is not used by the media to sink a campaign. Yet the Times managed to give every appearance of trying to do so. It's nothing short of journalistic malpractice when a paper mounts a last-minute attack that can make or break one of the most important elections in California history. The Times looked even more biased by giving two different reasons for publishing its gruesome article at the last minute. Now, there's no time left before the election to separate fact from fiction regarding incidents that happened as long as 20 and 30 years ago. I should disclose here that I know one of Schwarzenegger's accusers. She is a friendly acquaintance. I have no idea whether she was actually man-handled. Is it possible that my acquaintance told friends a tall tale, after meeting Schwarzenegger, because back then it made a young woman terribly exotic if one of the hottest beefcakes in the world wouldn't keep his paws off you? I have no idea. Or, could she be telling the truth? I have no idea. And neither does the Los Angeles Times. If the Times were a tabloid, this would hardly matter. But the newspaper is influential at times, and claims it has high standards. In this case, the paper gave in to its bias against Schwarzenegger: Here's my proof: Since at least 1997, the Times has been sitting on information that Gov. Gray Davis is an "office batterer" who has attacked female members of his staff, thrown objects at subservients and launched into red-faced fits, screaming the f-word until staffers cower. I published a lengthy article on Davis and his bizarre dual personality at the now-defunct New Times Los Angeles on Nov. 27, 1997, as well as several articles with similar information later on. The Times was onto the story, too, and we crossed paths. My article, headlined "Closet Wacko Vs. Mega Fibber," detailed how Davis flew into a rage one day because female staffers had rearranged framed artwork on the walls of his office. He so violently shoved his loyal, 62-year-old secretary out of a doorway that she suffered a breakdown and refused to ever work in the same room with him. She worked at home, in an arrangement with state officials, then worked in a separate area where she was promised Davis would not go. She finally transferred to another job, desperate to avoid him. He left a message on her phone machine. Not an apology. Just a request that she resume work, with the comment, "You know how I am." Another woman, a policy analyst, had the unhappy chore in the mid-1990s of informing Davis that a fund-raising source had dried up. When she told Davis, she recounted, Davis began screaming the f-word at the top of his lungs. The woman stood to demand that he stop speaking that way, and, she says, Davis grabbed her by her shoulders and "shook me until my teeth rattled. I was so stunned I said, 'Good God, Gray! Stop and look at what you are doing. Think what you are doing to me!"' After my story ran, I waited for the Times to publish its story. It never did. When I spoke to a reporter involved, he said editors at the Times were against attacking a major political figure using anonymous sources. Just what they did last week to Schwarzenegger. Weeks ago, Times editors sent two teams of reporters to dig dirt on Schwarzenegger, one on his admitted use of steroids as a bodybuilder, one on the old charges of groping women from Premiere Magazine. Who did the editors assign, weeks ago, to investigate Davis' violence against women who work for him? Nobody. The paper's protection of Davis is proof, on its face, of gross bias. If Schwarzenegger is elected governor, it should be no surprise if Times reporters judge him far more harshly than they ever judged Davis. __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate!

10-07-2003, 02:31 AM	#2 (permalink)
seretogis Huggles, sir? Location: Seattle	Wow, that is disgusting. __________________ seretogis - sieg heil perfect little dream the kind that hurts the most, forgot how it feels well almost no one to blame always the same, open my eyes wake up in flames

10-07-2003, 04:16 AM	#3 (permalink)
The_Dude The GrandDaddy of them all! Location: Austin, TX	ok, got some more proof on the battery? we all know what arnold did cuz he didnt hold anything back in the interview (no holes barred he ). __________________ "Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

10-07-2003, 04:39 AM	#4 (permalink)
seretogis Huggles, sir? Location: Seattle	I think you are missing the point of the story. __________________ seretogis - sieg heil perfect little dream the kind that hurts the most, forgot how it feels well almost no one to blame always the same, open my eyes wake up in flames

10-07-2003, 05:40 AM	#5 (permalink)
Kadath Muffled Location: Camazotz	A major newspaper with political bias?! Say it ain't so! Biased reporting is everywhere. This is just as bad as say, Fox News. Or the Washington Times. It is disgusting. And as common as dishonest politicians. __________________ it's quiet in here

10-07-2003, 11:18 AM	#6 (permalink)
ctembreull Crazy Location: Silicon Valley, CA, USA, Earth	Oh, you mean something like this...? Press Release at Georgy Russell's Campaign Website Gubernatorial Candidate Roughed up At Arnold Rally Gubernatorial candidate Georgy Russell was pushed, shoved, hit and kicked yesterday by supporters of Arnold Schwarzenegger at a rally in Pleasanton CA. She was repeatedly called a "bitch" and one of the Arnold Supporters wrote on her clothing with a permanent marking pen. The felonious abusers, who claimed to be provoked by remarks from Russell, were near equal numbers of men and women and no one during the incident came to Russell's aid. Schwarzeneggar and his wife Maria Shriver witnessed the attack and neither said or did anything to stop the abuse. Russell, while disgusted with the behavior, thinks Arnold and his supporters deserve each other. "Some of Arnold's supporters apparently do not hesitate when it comes to using violence to accomplish their goals. It's not surprising that they support and defend a candidate who has manifested poor judgment and aggressive behavior most of his adult life. The behavior exhibited by Arnold's supporters is not simply an aberration, it is an MO that has it's roots at the top; it is reminiscent of the behavior of the thugs that were bussed in by Republicans during the Florida recount to perform much the same role as the bullies of yesterday and while that is no surprise to me I am nonetheless sickened by it all. This bully mentality was exhibited by Arnold in the debate in his rude treatment of Arianna Huffington and that the press offered little to no criticism of his behavior opened the door wide and gave a green light to his supporters to follow suit." This trend towards violence is becoming a near prevailing attitude in the Schwarzenengger camp. At the Modesto stop, the emcee suggested that someone find the LA Times reporter and "beat him up." In Pleasanton, Arnold supporters blocked cameras to keep photographers from taking shots of Code Pink protesters. Russell escaped with only minor bruises and scratches and in her now trademark wit she said of the fan who wrote on her clothing. "I find it quite ironic, and somewhat entertaining, that Arnold's fan used his pen to cross out on my shirt 'Brains, Beauty, Leadership,^Ò all traits Arnold himself lacks." Attached is an email from a witness to the attacks, apologizing for the abusive behavior of Arnold supporters, sent to the Georgy for Governor campaign this morning. ... The email is available via the link. What we have is the worm turning here, but this time it's not just the candidate, but the candidate's supporters. It seems that Schwarzenegger has drawn quite a few like-minded people to his cause. Frankly, I'm repulsed by this whole entire process. Davis is no great shakes, but Arnie's a nightmare waiting to happen. His campaign is being run by Pete Wilson, possibly the most reviled governor in California history - even more so than Davis. He's linked directly to Karl Rove. He has met at least once with Ken Lay to discuss ending the state's attempts to force Enron and other power companies to repay the $9 billion in overcharges reaped during the summer of 2001. Trust me, I could go on at great length about how Schwarzenegger is potentially the worst thing ever to happen to California - and I wouldn't once have to refer to his character. Think Davis is bad? You haven't seen bad. But you will - and soon - if Arnold takes the state house. I'm comforted only by the knowledge that he'll almost certainly be recalled within six months. As for me, I think it's time to start looking for places other than California to live. __________________ Mac "If it's nae Scottish, it's crap!

10-07-2003, 11:50 AM	#8 (permalink)
eple Banned Location: norway	guess we really need to get tha whole World Watch Media Idea thingie up and going. Was some smarty-international worldwide neutral media watch organization proposed in some article in Le Monde the other day. Unbiased news is gold in the coming communication age. I only have it on paper, anybody got some links?

10-07-2003, 02:24 PM	#10 (permalink)
little limey Psycho Location: Room Nineteen	I don't see how the claim against arnold is more true than that of Davis. I don't see hard proof supporting either claim.

10-07-2003, 06:49 PM	#13 (permalink)
Food Eater Lad Banned	I would say being a racist seperatist is far worse than being a groper.

10-07-2003, 08:19 PM	#15 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	ctembreull, To be honest, I expected a more logical argument from you. Really, she didn't report it because there would be no result? Maybe she just "found" herself at an Arnold rally? The Times had Arnold allegations for years that they researched (but just happened to release days before the election) vs Davis allegations that had been around for years that they brushed off? If I'm at your rally mouthing off you "guarentee" that no one will shove me? /shakes head Ok, whatever. __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate! Last edited by Lebell; 10-07-2003 at 08:23 PM..

10-08-2003, 05:11 AM	#18 (permalink)
Kadath Muffled Location: Camazotz	Colmes describes himself as "really very moderate." Going through the Fox News day: Steve Doocy is on "Fox and Friends," a four person program. None of the other people on your list are on that program, so I guess it's 3 on 1? On the weekend it's a three-person program, and none of those hosts are on your list. Fox News Live has six anchors and is on for six hours, 25% of Fox News' day. None of them are on your list. Day Side with Linda Vester -- she's not on your list. Studio B with Shepard Smith -- not on the list. Your World with Neil Cavuto -- not on the list... It goes on like this. In fact, looking at the "named" shows, none of the named people are on the list, with the notable exception of Alan Colmes, who really isn't pulling the collective weight of those six liberals you listed. I grant that FNC employs liberals. I imagine they are off mopping out toilets when it comes time to spin the news. __________________ it's quiet in here

10-08-2003, 12:08 PM	#21 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	For ctembreull: http://www.latimes.com/news/custom/s...ch3oct03.story ---------------------------------------------- A Deplorable October Surprise By Susan Estrich So this is the October surprise? The Los Angeles Times headline that Arnold Schwarzenegger groped and humiliated women? None of the six women interviewed by The Times filed legal charges. Four of the six were quoted anonymously. Of the two who were named, one, a British television hostess, had told her story to Premiere magazine years ago, and it has been widely known and largely ignored. The other recounts an alleged incident of fondling at Gold's Gym nearly 30 years ago. The anonymous incidents occurred on movie sets and consist of touching a woman's breast in the elevator, whispering vulgarities and pulling a woman onto his lap. Though emphasizing that not everything in the stories was accurate, the candidate responded Thursday with an apology: "Yes, it is true that I was on rowdy movie sets and I have done things that were not right which I thought then was playful, but now I recognize that I offended people." And he pledged to treat women with respect if elected. As a professor of sex discrimination law for two decades and an expert on sexual harassment, I certainly don't condone the unwanted touching of women that was apparently involved here. But these acts do not appear to constitute any crime, such as rape or sodomy or even assault or battery. As for civil law, sexual harassment requires more than a single case of unwelcome touching; there must be either a threat or promise of sex in exchange for a job benefit or demotion, or the hostile environment must be severe and pervasive. But none of these women, as The Times emphasizes, ever came forward to complain. The newspaper went looking for them, and then waited until five days before the election to tell the fragments of the story. What this story accomplishes is less an attack on Schwarzenegger than a smear on the press. It reaffirms everything that's wrong with the political process. Anonymous charges from years ago made in the closing days of a campaign undermine fair politics. Facing these charges, a candidate has two choices. If he denies them, the story keeps building and overshadows everything else he does. Schwarzenegger's bold apology is a gamble to make the story go away. It may or may not work. But here's my prediction, as a Californian: It's too late for the Los Angeles Times' charges to have much impact. People have made up their minds. This attack, coming as late as it does, from a newspaper that has been acting more like a cheerleader for Gray Davis than an objective source of information, will be dismissed by most people as more Davis-like dirty politics. Is this the worst they could come up with? Ho-hum. After what we've been through? To his credit, Schwarzenegger apologized for "behaving badly." So should the Los Angeles Times. _ _ _ Susan Estrich, a professor of law and political science at USC, is the author of "Sex and Power" (Riverside Press, 2001). She was national campaign manager for Democratic presidential nominee Michael Dukakis in 1987-88. __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate!