Debating the 'LA Times' Arnold Series

By: Joe Strupp Opinion

The debate over whether the Los Angeles Times should have run a series of stories about alleged sexual harassment by Arnold Schwarzenegger just days before the election will not go away quietly, nor should it. "The fact that it happened sets a precedent," Larry Sabato, director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia, told E&P last week. "Hitting people with allegations ... that affect voters should be done only in extreme cases." With rare exceptions, newspapers have clung to a tradition of not running a last-minute bombshell that gives the target little time to respond.

Almost as important as the Times' decision to air the charges was the reaction they provoked (including more than 1,000 cancelled subscriptions), and how the newspaper dealt with it.

Many pro-Arnold readers quickly condemned the reporting after the first story appeared on Oct. 2, five days before Election Day, claiming six woman had accused the action star of groping or other inappropriate behavior. Aside from the timing, critics noted the story identified only two of the accusers.

On its face, the newspaper's actions could be seen as questionable at best, biased at worst. Reporting a story based mostly on unnamed sources, days before an election, regarding the sensitive issue of sexual harassment, is obviously going to spark criticism. My initial reaction was to condemn the Times, but now I see it in a somewhat different light.

First of all, Schwarzenegger, while denying any specific allegations, admitted he had "behaved badly" in the past with women and even apologized. Second, at least 10 more women came forward to offer similar stories of bad behavior, with the majority letting the Times use their names, suggesting that, as even Arnold admitted, "where there's smoke there's fire."

Finally, Schwarzenegger won the election anyway, proving that either voters didn't believe the stories or didn't feel the allegations were serious enough (many found him guilty only of "womanizing") to keep him out of office. But it is likely that most of those who cast ballots were glad to know about the allegations, believing voters make their best decisions when they have all of the facts.

"Our role is to serve citizens of varying views by examining the behavior and the policies of political leaders and publishing our findings," Times Editor John Carroll wrote in an extraordinary front-page column defending the paper's actions. "And when we publish, we do it in a timely fashion. Better, I say, to be surprised by your newspaper in October than to learn in November that your newspaper has betrayed you by withholding the truth."

Still, I remained convinced the Times had erred as I sought the opinion of several editors from major U.S. papers. Not surprisingly, nearly all of them backed Carroll and his paper. But, while I expected them to claim that using unnamed sources was acceptable and newspapers should always lean toward reporting information rather than withholding it, there were two other arguments that convinced me to give the paper the benefit of the doubt.

First of all, as several editors pointed out, this was the Los Angeles Times, not the National Enquirer. It has a reputation that, for the most part, commands respect. "John Carroll is a fine editor and someone I have complete confidence in," said Rick Rodriguez, executive editor of The Sacramento (Calif.) Bee. Ben Marrison, editor of The Columbus (Ohio) Dispatch, said the Times' reputation as a responsible paper led him to believe editors must have felt assured the accusations were correct before reporting the story. "It was clear that there was a pattern to his behavior," Marrison said about Schwarzenegger. "They ran it as soon as they felt comfortable with it."

That leads to the second important consideration: As anyone who has used anonymous sources or background information for an investigative report knows, you don't always report everything you know, but you use it all in determining what to report.

Several editors pointed out that what went on behind closed newsroom doors at the Times is known only to those involved. So if one acknowledges the Times has a reputation for solid reporting, one must also assume these stories were well-vetted. "You have to know what kind of conversations took place in the newsroom [before criticizing]," said Carole Leigh Hutton, executive editor of the Detroit Free Press.

Others pointed out that since the campaign lasted only about two months, the normal length of time for an investigation was radically compressed. "The timing was dictated by the story," observed San Antonio Express-News Editor Robert Rivard, "and they had to go with it as soon as they could." Anders Gyllenhaal, editor of the Star Tribune in Minneapolis, agreed, noting that if you hold off "you would, in effect, be squelching the story."

Whether the articles should have been published remains, as with many ethical issues, a subjective point, but on balance it seems the Times series did little to unfairly hurt the governor-elect's credibility and a lot to fully inform the voters.