Fire and return fire. First Lou Cannon shelled the Santa Barbara News-Press in an article for the LA Times. In response, Wendy McCaw shot back in Sunday’s News-Press, with an editorial that defended the NP‘s actions and, among other things, called accused Cannon of being unsympathetic to the victims of child pornography. Cannon then wrote McCaw a letter to run in her paper. Though he claims he received confirmation that the print version was received, the letter has not yet run in the NP, nor has he received an email response.
Below is the letter, printed in full.
Dear Ms. McCaw:
Your diatribe about me in the Sunday News-Press has been brought to my attention. What an amazing compendium of falsehoods and innuendos! But the piece served the purpose of highlighting our different views of a newspaper’s responsibility. I believe a newspaper is a public trust. You apparently regard a newspaper as a plaything to serve the personal purposes of an owner unconstrained by journalistic ethics or human decency.
As various inquiries have determined, you violated ethical standards of journalism by suppressing news stories and reprimanding reporters for doing their jobs. In so doing you provoked a series of courageous resignations by persons who risked their livelihoods in the name of ethical journalism. Considering your track record, for you to lecture me on journalistic ethics is a bit like Willie Sutton instructing someone on bank management. I have spent my life in journalism, working for several California newspapers and twenty-six years for The Washington Post, and am highly regarded for my professionalism. I have won numerous awards and written eight books, including acclaimed biographies of Ronald Reagan and a social history of the 1992 Los Angeles riots. My reputation has been earned, not inherited or won in a legal settlement. I am not beholden to any party, government, sect, faction, corporation, union, nor to anyone, like yourself, who believes that your wealth entitles you to harass, smear, and intimidate honest people.
There are too many absurdities in your Sunday column to respond to all of them. But let’s set the record straight on a few points.
The first is your pretense at being concerned by child pornography and the implication that I somehow condone it. I am much more concerned about this problem than you are, being a father of four, a grandfather of six, and a great-grandfather, as well. Child pornography is EVIL, and we need to combat it. What have you done? Most people would say that one combats child pornography by getting the police to investigate any evidence of it and the district attorney to prosecute. Are you really trying to retrieve from the police a computer with images of child pornography? Why would you do that? Do you know more than the police? Those of us who are truly concerned about child pornography find this very strange behavior.
Another point that requires response is your COMPLETELY FALSE and ludicrous statement that I have not attempted to talk to you. I have been trying to talk to you for six years! Let’s look at the record:
After the attack on our country of September 11, 2001, your city editor asked me to meet with News-Press staff members to discuss the problems of journalism in times of national crisis. I spoke and answered questions in a room at the News-Press building. It was announced that you were invited to the meeting and were expected to attend. But you never showed up. This was disappointing, for I was looking forward to meeting you.
After Jerry Roberts and the other ethical journalists resigned because you had suppressed stories that a reputable newspaper would have published, I telephoned you. You didn’t return the call. Then, on July 10, 2006, I sent a letter to you and to Travis Armstrong canceling my subscription and giving the reasons. There was no acknowledgment. When it became evident that you were not going to publish my letter, I made it available to the Independent, which ran it. Are you afraid to expose your readers to the views of those who disagree with you? What is your explanation for your editorial policy of keeping most critical letters out of the News-Press?
Still, after all that had happened, I harbored the hope that you had the interests of the community at heart. How naive that seems now. But on August 27, 2006, I wrote a letter-signed also by the respected journalist Sander Vanocur, two community activists and two members of the local clergy-in an attempt to avert the mass union campaign against the News-Press. The letter asked for a meeting to “get beyond the confrontation and the name-calling” and to “explore any and all alternatives to this damaging and seemingly endless confrontation.” It was hand-delivered to the News-Press by Harriett Phillips, one of the signers. You did not extend us the courtesy of a reply. I was told later that many community leaders had attempted to meet with you and had received the same treatment. So please withdraw your contemptible statement that no effort was made to get your side of the story.
Ms. McCaw, journalistic ethics are not derived from polling readers. They have evolved over time-I wrote a chapter in a book about it, if you are interested in the history-and are not particularly mysterious. They involve basic procedures of fairness and integrity and are embodied in a code written by the Society of Professional Journalists, which found you had failed these standards in the case of Mr. Roberts and the others who resigned. Those of us who are journalists try, however imperfectly, to follow these standards. I know of no newspaper owner other than you who disavows them.
Let me conclude with some questions:
Why do you surround “journalism” with quotation marks? If you owned a restaurant, would you use “food” in quotation marks?
Do you really believe you can silence your critics by attacking and trying to intimidate them? Ms. McCaw, the truth has greater force than all your millions. During my fifty years as a journalist, which includes covering the fall of President Nixon, I have seen many rich and powerful people who have been held accountable for ethical lapses.
When do you plan to tell advertisers and your dwindling readership that the News-Press lost nine and a half percent of its subscribers this past year, in percentage terms more than any other paper in the region? The Los Angeles Times reported this information (and its own circulation decline, as ethical newspapers do). How many readers do you expect to have a year from now?
Will you meet with community leaders who are outraged by your inaccessibility, the paper’s lapsed ethical standards, and its diminished local news coverage? Ms. McCaw, the hour is late but not too late. If you changed course, treated employees fairly, and observed the basic ethical standards of journalism, I’m sure the community would forgive you-I know I would-and your fellow publishers would no longer shun you. It is in your interest to behave responsibly.
Since you were upset that the Los Angeles Times didn’t publish your reply to my column, I’m sure you will want to print this letter in full in the News-Press. That would be a valid demonstration of journalistic ethics.
Sincerely,
Lou Cannon



Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
Comments
Share Article
Myspace







Previous Month



Comments
Wow. In the Cannon to McCaw to Cannon public firefight, Wendy McCaw doesn't come off as being very bright. Her thought processes aren't linear, she forgets basic facts, and seems to lose her way and her temper several times during her essay. She meanders from Jerry Roberts to child porn to the dawn of the internet to Lou Cannon. She tries to force innuendo that just isn't there: Lou the father, grandfather and great-grandfather somehow supports child porn and divorced and childless McCaw becomes a children's advocate, even though her immense foundation doesn't reflect it. She obviously doesn't care a whit about public opinion but ironically tries to use bias percentages from a secret poll to justify blowing holes in her own ship by forcing everyone out through unethical conduct. All in all, she suffers badly in comparison to a true news industry professional like Lou Cannon. She hasn't learned that just saying something over and over again doesn't make it true. Her incompetency in newspapering is clear, but the better question to be asked, with all due respect, is whether she's clinically losing her grip on reality.
Pip_pip_for_now (anonymous profile)
May 31, 2007 at 10:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Pip_pip -
Three cheers, old chap! Your erudite summation of the Cannon-McFlaw skirmish is spot-on! I couldn't have said it any better.
This whole Mess-y episode is definitive proof that a Stanford education and newspaper ownership do not a professional journalist make.
niceFLguy (anonymous profile)
June 1, 2007 at 4:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The Wendy will find the real child pornographers just like OJ Simpson will find the real killers of his murdered wife.
FirstDistrictStreetfighter (anonymous profile)
June 1, 2007 at 1:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I want to know why the Santa Barbara Police Department is not investigating the N.P. for having child porn on its computer. Since it was their machine they could be held responsible. Also, why has the server that the N.P. owns not been looked into for evidence of when the alleged porn was received? Who was the network administrator and why has he / she not been questioned as to why these types of websites were not blocked by the N.P.? If there are no such records on the N.P. server, why do they have such a weak system?
Herschel_Greenspan (anonymous profile)
June 1, 2007 at 2:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Herschel Greenspan offers good questions, many of which are addressed if not answered from initial Independent coverage of this story by Nick Welsh:
http://independent.com/news/2007/apr/...
N-P Systems administrator Raul Gil is a key, and brave, observer in the N-P's attempts to smear Jerry Roberts
--virtual dowser
biff_arden (anonymous profile)
June 2, 2007 at 8:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Perhaps this is forbidden ground, but how do we really know that there was child pornography on the computer in question? The disk recovery firm found some images among 15,000... OK, and how do they know that they were children? Did the people in the images show ID? Ok, it will be very obvious in many cases, and maybe that is the case here. But maybe not, maybe the disk recovery firm thought it was a close call (how can they tell the difference between age 16 and age 19?) and turned it on to the police. The police have declined to prosecute. So, in the end, how do we know that there were any child pornography? Could be that the police chose not to prosecute in part because it was not beyond a reasonable doubt that the images were even of underage subjects. Which would make the News-Press's actions even more excreble.
I totally agree with Cannon that child pornography is EVIL. But I'd like to point out that we don't even really know if there was any child pornography on that disk. And that is another reason why the News-Press providing a megaphone for the possibility that child pornography *might* be present is all the more objectionable.
pardallchewinggumspot (anonymous profile)
June 4, 2007 at 4:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The age of the Big Lie is coming to an ignominous and bloody end. Altho Ms. McCaw seems to be the last to know. Perhaps President Bush will come top her rescue and fawn over her declaring he has the utmost confidence in her. When the Shrub backs her, we'll know she's toast...
In the immortal words of the man who presided over the Valdez Oil Spill at Exxon, trying to lecture McCaw et al on ethics is like nailing jello to a tree.
HueyChapala (anonymous profile)
June 6, 2007 at 12:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)