"Left-leaning" or "nonpartisan"?

Why would a Times article call the American Enterprise Institute "conservative-leaning," but not refer in the same article to the politics of the Mike Mansfield Foundation? Why do stories refer to the Brookings Institution variously as "centrist," "conservative" and "nonpartisan"?

Some readers have an answer to the inconsistent application of labels: They think it shows bias, saying it suggests that the reporter believes that one is mainstream and thus needs no label, while the other needs to be identified as somewhere relative to that norm.

The question was most recently raised on the April 23 article about a CIA report to Congress alleging ties between North Korea and Syria. Reader Norman Nathan of Los Angeles noted, "The article identifies the AEI as 'right-leaning' but it does not identify the Mike Mansfield Foundation as a 'left-leaning organization.' And the story gives no context as to the reasoning." In a follow-up phone call Nathan said he thought it showed liberal bias, and that furthermore, "I would have thought there would be a policy, a standard, consistent way of identifying foundations."

The April 23 article on North Korea-Syria ties reported that "disclosure of the relationship to the committees is likely to bring criticism from conservative lawmakers" who already believe that the U.S. has been too gentle with the government in Pyongyang. The story went on: "Danielle Pletka, a vice president of the conservative-leaning American Enterprise Institute think tank, said the congressional briefings were simply a step the administration needed to take to move forward." Here's the reference to the foundation: "'You'll have some outcry, but I doubt there are enough people on Capitol Hill even paying attention to oppose it,' said Gordon Flake, who follows the issue as executive director of the Maureen and Mike Mansfield Foundation and is a critic of such a pact."

This particular story was by Paul Richter, who says he agrees with the readers.

Life in the shadows

The Life in the Shadow series has since mid-March been examining the impact of illegal immigration on the region and its residents, and the stories have tried to capture the day-to-day realities of life for those here illegally. The series complements the paper's continuing coverage of the debate over legislative reforms, and the effect of illegal immigration in the state and nation. The effort to reach and reflect the region has extended to having the articles published online in both English and Spanish.

Both the series and translations have brought, predictably, strong reaction.

Four articles have been part of the series: The Column One on March 12 about a woman, in the U.S. illegally, who makes a living by collecting cans and bottles (it's in Spanish here, and there was an earlier posting on this journal). The front-page piece on March 23 about how those who wash cars are often here illegally and get paid under the table -- many times being shortchanged in the process (the translation). The April 2 story, also a Column One, on how families can be divided after someone here illegally dies (the Spanish version).

And the most recent, on April 13, which focused on two young illegal immigrants whose liver transplants were paid for by the state, but whose treatment costs when they turned 21 went to L.A. County -- which doesn't have the resources to cover additional transplants.

Passionate responses include thank yous, such as this from Frank Galvan of Los Angeles in reaction to the April 2 piece: "I appreciated your article on the traumas many undocumented workers face when dealing with a death of a loved one.  Your article helped put a human face on a population which is too often only considered by many to be just a 'problem' for the United States."

And there are objections, such as this from David Duron of Yucaipa, who wrote, "Your penchant for writing sympathetic stories about the 'plight' of illegal aliens has driven me over the brink. I tolerated the reports until I read the article about liver transplants. That was the last straw." And half of the 400 comments offered by readers as online postings were too filled with profanity to be used.

Perspectives on Heston and heaven

Bob Smith of Glendale calls him Chuck Heston -- he knew the man for 20 years and spent time with him at the L.A. Tennis Club -- and was horrified to see the Matt Wuerker cartoon in The Times' opinion pages on April 8.

The drawing, which ran in black and white in The Times, showed Heston at the Pearly Gates hoisting a rifle and wearing an NRA shirt while St. Peter says, "I don't care if the guy says he's Moses! Pry the gun from his cold, dead hands, or he isn't going nowhere..."

In a phone message, Smith called the cartoon "unbelievably tasteless." In a conversation later, he added, "I was horrified to see that caricature in The Times. He was one of the fairest-minded people you'll ever see on this planet. And it's cheap to go after his image after he's passed away."

Many other readers who didn't know Heston personally also raised concerns.  Eric Cooper of Santa Monica also thought the cartoon was in "extremely bad taste": "No matter what his or your views ... the week he passes away is not the time to make him the butt of a joke. Why ridicule someone who can now no longer respond? He lived over 80 years. Ya had plenty of time." Cooper added he doesn't happen to share Heston's perspective on guns.

Robber in a USC sweatshirt

Matt Swanson of Los Angeles sent this question about a March 19 story:

"It was chilling to read that two students were robbed at gunpoint recently while studying in USC classrooms. While you reported in detail what the suspects were wearing, for some reason you neglected to mention their race, which I think would be significant to know since the perpetrators are at large. Given the demographics of the area surrounding USC, I'm wondering if there is some policy at the L.A. Times that prevents identifying suspects' race."

Physical descriptions in the print version of the article included  references to "a man in a red-orange hooded sweatshirt" for the first armed robbery; in the second, the story described "a man ...wearing a black cloth mask as well as a red-hooded sweatshirt with a yellow Trojan emblem on the front."

The story concluded, "LAPD Deputy Chief Kenneth Garner said investigators believe the same person may be responsible, although there were discrepancies in the witness descriptions. One victim described the robber as 18 to 20. The other victim said he was between 20 and 30."

"Scavenging to survive in Pasadena"

Brian Kruid of La Palma asked about the March 12 Column One that featured a woman, in this country illegally, who collects cans and bottles for a living. Juana Rivas, who lives in Pasadena, recycles the empty containers for cash, money that helps keep her family of six afloat.

Kruid started by saying that he thought the story was well written, "and certainly brought out the seemingly intended 'emotional' sense to the reader." But he went on: "Was this just another one of the ever-popular 'find a downtrodden individual and showcase how hard their life is to make everybody feel bad and want to do something to help' journalistic approach? Was this intended to push me into a certain political sphere regarding illegal immigration? Is this news?"

Other readers said they felt as if the Times was "promoting illegal immigration." A few said they thought that Rivas should be turned in to immigration officials; one said that she feared that The Times' writing about her by name would lead to her deportation.

A Republican hidden in plain sight

Quite often this office hears readers say The Times' news coverage shows bias. Usually "liberal" precedes the word "bias"; sometimes readers see a conservative slant.

The most helpful comments are those that give specifics on what led to that reaction. A few readers on Wednesday pointed to one reference to show where they thought a news article showed opinion.

Troublesome snapshots of the campaign trail

Dave Keliher of Los Angeles spoke for a number of readers who have called and written over the past several weeks when on Feb. 20 he wrote, "Enough is enough is enough. On too many occasions when you run photos of Ms. Hillary and Mr. Barack the photos are not balanced. I expect more from you. If you don't know what I'm talking about, look at today's paper, Page A16. You have a wonderful picture of Obama, looking like Jesus parting the Red Sea -- pacific, at ease, in control.  (I know it was Moses, but that's not the point.) Now look at Hillary: strained, tense, constipated. What's up with that? I know life is unfair but I expect YOU to find a balance."

Then again are calls like this one from a reader who didn't leave a name: "I’m so tired of opening up the paper and it’s all positive about Clinton and you stick Obama on the back page. Every single day for about a week and a half -– I’m tired of it."

The whys and whens of (D) and (R)

The front-page article on Feb. 8 about the shooting at a city council meeting in Kirkwood, Mo., included a reference to the state governor that reader Roslyn Lothridge questioned.  "I would like to know why you felt it was necessary to write the following: 'Republican Gov. Matt Blunt called the tragedy a "senseless and horrific crime."' Yes it was a horrific crime, but what does Gov. Blunt's choice of his  political party have to do with the article? I noticed that you did not point out any one else's political party. What was your point in doing so?"

It’s not the first time a question has been raised on when and why party affiliations are made a part of the story. 

Editors think that providing the party affiliation of elected officials is useful for readers. As chief of copy desks Clark Stevens puts it, “Besides the basic information it provides, it gives us uniformity, consistency and, presumably, even-handedness.” But it’s less policy than practice, as Lothridge noted in her e-mail and as other stories show.

Is immigration status relevant?

As staff writer Tony Barboza put it, "It might be worthwhile to post something about when and why reporters include immigration status in stories, and why they often don't."

He and other reporters -- and the readers' representative office -- get the question whenever, it seems, a crime story is published about someone who "happens to have a Spanish last name,"  as Barboza puts it. Some readers ask whether the person is illegal and often believe that The Times is not reporting information that, in these readers' opinions, would provide insight into a correlation between crime and illegal immigrants.

Race, gender, religion: What's the relevance?

Several descriptives applied to candidates in recent campaign coverage have raised valid questions: What details are needed, and what is extraneous, in reporting on candidates? When does faith -- or race -- go from something reporters and editors try to strip out of the discourse, to a necessary fact?

Strike story: Writers react

This e-mail from Melinda Hsu Taylor of Los Angeles represented several dozen that came in to the L.A. Times in response to a Dec. 12 story on the writers' strike: "I object to the vague, prejudicial and unsupported claims that 'the Writers Guild of America is under new and mounting pressure from its ranks to get back to the bargaining table'... and 'a number of union members are unhappy... .'  Only one WGA member (Craig Mazin) was actually quoted by name. Meanwhile, thousands of picketers are showing up at the studios every day."

Illegal immigrants and health care

The Times' Nov. 27 story on a study that found that illegal immigrants in Los Angeles County used fewer health services than U.S.-born Latinos garnered the same sort of response that comes for most stories about illegal immigration: Impassioned notes from people with viewpoints on all points of the political spectrum. Some 30 readers sent questions on the piece.

One of them, Kay Brown of South Pasadena, took The Times to task for seeking comment from a group she says is "anti-immigrant." Writes Brown: "I am offended that a totally anti-immigrant organization, Federation for American Immigration Reform, is being used without extensively qualifying this source. I hope the federation is not used just because they are easy to find. Reporters and editors are easily fooled into thinking the federation's point of view will help 'balance'  immigration issues."

Other readers questioned the study itself. Robert Hemedes of Los Angeles echoed others when he said the study was flawed because "it relies on a phone call survey where people will lie or undercount the number of times they use hospital services. The most accurate information can be collected from hospitals themselves. The collected results will most likely contradict what the phone survey missed."

Reporter Mary Engel, who covers health care, responds.