Reporting on $175K donation, LA Times did not mention that GOP is behind CA electoral-vote initiative
A September 26 Los Angeles Times article reported that a "newly created Missouri company has made the first public donation to date -- $175,000 -- to a proposed California initiative that would alter how the state allocates its electoral votes," referring to a controversial proposal to award California's electoral votes by congressional district. The article continued: "The donation arrived Sept. 11, one day after Missouri attorney Charles Hurth III created the company, TIA Take Initiative America." However, the Times did not note that the initiative was proposed by a lawyer with ties to the California Republican Party and was endorsed by the party's state convention. Nor did the article report that Hurth has donated to the campaign of GOP presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani. Indeed, the word "Republican" appears nowhere in the article.
By contrast, a September 25 Sacramento Bee article on Hurth's donation noted that the ballot measure was "written by prominent Sacramento GOP attorney Tom Hiltachk." The Bee also reported that "Hurth is not a major political donor but gave Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani $2,000 in March." Indeed, this information is publicly available.
Hiltachk, who submitted the ballot measure to the California attorney general's office on July 17, is managing partner of Bell, McAndrews & Hiltachk and formerly served as legal counsel to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R-CA), as Media Matters for America has documented. Further, Bell, McAndrews senior partner Charles H. Bell Jr. is general counsel to the California Republican Party.
Hiltachk has played a role in several Republican campaigns to pass ballot initiatives that would benefit that party. He served as counsel to Ted Costa, the former chairman of the Sacramento County Republican Central Committee who filed the petition seeking the 2003 recall of Gov. Gray Davis (D). Hiltachk also represented and served as a spokesman for Rescue California, a ballot-measure committee that spent $3.6 million promoting the recall initiative. The Bee reported in a July 1, 2004, article that Rescue California "gathered 1.3 million of the signatures that got the measure on the October 2003 ballot." On October 7, 2003, Davis was recalled from office and replaced by Schwarzenegger. Hiltachk also served as treasurer of Governor Schwarzenegger's California Recovery Team, a ballot-initiative committee that supported measures to mandate judicial redistricting of California's congressional districts and require employee consent for the use of union dues for political purposes.
Further, the September 26 Times article reported that "Kevin Eckery, a spokesman for the ballot measure, said he was not sure who was behind the donation," but did not note, as the Times did in an August 6 article, that Eckery is a "Republican consultant."
Following is the full text of the Times article, headlined "New firm donates to Calif. ballot drive":
A newly created Missouri company has made the first public donation to date -- $175,000 -- to a proposed California initiative that would alter how the state allocates its electoral votes.
The donation arrived Sept. 11, one day after Missouri attorney Charles Hurth III created the company, TIA Take Initiative America.
Hurth did not return phone calls Tuesday, and Kevin Eckery, a spokesman for the ballot measure, said he was not sure who was behind the donation.
The proposed June ballot measure has alarmed Democrats nationwide.
It would change California's winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes to one in which electoral votes are awarded based on which candidate wins the state's various congressional districts.
Democrats assume the Democratic nominee must capture all of California's 55 electoral votes in order to win the presidency.
















What does this have to do with O'Reilly? I don't understand. . .
MMFA is so obsessed with O'Reilly they are giving every story an O'Reilly headline?
Hahahaha ;-)
LOL! Too funny, Rick, too funny.
MMfA is hereby using "OReilly" as a synonym and replacement for "GOP", "Republican", "Racist", "Hitler", various forms referring to swine, and "white devil."
Preston,
MMFA originally had the wrong headline on this story when Rick & I posted, it read:
Newsday referred to O'Reilly's "misquoted report," but provided no examples
They've since corrected it, but Rick's post is still funny :-)
My bad, Jeter. I thought Rick was being sarcastic because it wasn't another O'Reilly topic, since most of the threads from yesterday were dominated by O'Reilly. But, yeah, it's still funny both ways. :)
Pretty shrewd move by the GOP in California. As I understand it, a ballot initiative in CA being the only thing that changes the way electoral votes are distributed in a state is unconstitutional, because it says specifically that legislatures should decide how electoral votes are cast. I wonder why we aren't doing the same in other states...if every state did this, would there be a net effect favoring one party over another?
First ... The so-called "article" in the Times is essentially a news brief, a teeny-weeny 139 words. It's not meant to be a comprehensive article because (see #2.) ...
Second ... The Times has already chimed in on the GOP's measure. Check this out: "GOP trying to rig the presidential election." Real subtle, eh?
"Rig the election"? That doesn't sound like "conservative misinformation" from the L.A. Times to me, IMHO.
Shoe, do you know the difference between an editorial and a news item?
See, this guy is giving his opinion to stated facts. What you linked was his opinion. This is known as an Editorial.
If he were a journalist, (and he might be) he would present a column that contained the facts relevent to a story. This would be known as news. You may not understand this concept if you have been watching Fox a lot, or listening to a lot of Limbaugh, so let me explain.
A news column includes facts, such as 'who, what, where, and when.' It may include the opinions of others, but those opinions will be stated as such. ie 'Jim believed that the grass was too long, his neighbor Bill said it wasn't.'
Hope that helps.
You may not be familiar with the Los Angeles Times and how newspapers operate.
Skelton's column does not appear in the editorial section. It was on page one of the 'California' news section (page one of section B).
If you've been reading the LAT closely over the last few years, it's interesting to note the difference between their editorial stance and news articles. The Times is clearly a Republican paper-- always has been-- but the right wing slant leaks into matters as basic as subhead language in main line news articles. This kind of thing happens every day.
The Times owners are committed to re-making California into a red state. Their constant cheerleading about reapportionment to help Republicans-- all in the name of "balance"-- and their lackluster reporting on this other twisted scheme absolutely proves it.
"The Times is clearly a Republican paper"
Congratulations. In all my years on blogs - outside from comments that are patently offensive and hateful - that has got to be the most wacked-out comment I have ever seen written.
I get the LA Times every day. They are ridiculously liberal, and they don't even hide it! Their bias has been very well documented Try this site or this link.
Oh, my God. I was just scanning this thread and noticed your statement about the LAT favoring Republicans. Are you serious? The LAT is second only to the NYT in its substitution of liberal propaganda for news in the A section.
It matters not where it appears, as long as it's labeled opinion, editorial, or has the heading of someone writes an opinion piece, ie: THE ONLOOKER by Tommy Jeter, or SHOUTBACK by Rick Shoe, or LEFTALK by Lynn Solon.
Hope that helps.
The column says nothing about it being an 'editorial' or an 'opinion.'
Hope that helps you figure this out.
My God you are a blooming idiot? I just explained this to you one post back, and gave you some fake examples to help you understand.
The article you are pointing out is: "Capitol Journal, by George Skelton"--AN OPINION PIECE YOU FRIGGIN MORON.
I'm sorry, I shouldn't have shouted at you, but, I have little patience for stupidity.
I read the LA Times almost every day. Do you? "Capital Journal" is not some "opinion piece." If it were, it would be in the editorial section. It's always in the B section. Skelton reports on news around California, occasionally adding his own take on the issue.
I hope that helps.
Friday, September 28, 2007: The top of the front page of the LA Times:"GOP electoral effort founders." Now this is an actual full article, 1000+ words. Not a news brief, like the one MM cites.