Schwarzenegger mistress not named here, a rarity in media

Usually news outlets are noticeable for what they report. Less often, they stand out for what they don't.

That has been the case this week as the Los Angeles Times has held back the name of the child that former California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger fathered with a woman who worked for years in his Brentwood home.

Times political reporter Mark Z. Barabak broke the big story (along with reporter Victoria Kim) at about midnight Monday on this website. It appeared in Tuesday's print edition of the paper, setting off a furor that has swept across other newspapers, television, radio and the Internet. Virtually every news organization I could find has named the one-time Schwarzenegger employee and provided other details about the politician-movie star's secret child.

The Times has not only declined to name the woman, but is also not disclosing the name, age or sex of her child.

Late Wednesday afternoon, Times Editor Russ Stanton gave me a statement explaining why the Times didn't publish the name.

"The public has a legitimate interest in the behavior of someone who held high office in this state and is likely to remain prominent for a long time," Stanton said. "Schwarzenegger’s conduct is what was newsworthy.

"In some circumstances, it might be necessary or appropriate to reveal the identity of a politician’s mistress," he continued. "In this situation, we thought it was not. We hewed to the principle of protecting the identity of an innocent child.

"To have identified the mother would, in effect, have been to identify the child. Different media companies have different standards. We will stick by ours, regardless of what others do."

By 3:45 a.m. Tuesday morning, the celebrity website TMZ was on the story. Later in the day, it identified the mistress and began running pictures of the child, with the face obscured. From pictures Wednesday of television news crews swarming around the woman's home in Bakersfield, it was clear the Times' position was not shared by a lot of others.

ABC flashed a picture of the woman on the morning news. TMZ had a veritable album of photos, including one in which the young child's face could be seen. The New York Times named the woman, described the "quiet cul-de-sac" where she lives and provided other details of her life, though the paper did not name her child.

(An Associated Press account I read also did not give the woman's name, although it described the media mob scene around her home and interviewed neighbors--and named the family dog.)

New York Times Editor Bill Keller emailed his thoughts on identifying the mistress. "Our basic job is to inform readers about news events, so we need a pretty compelling reason NOT to give readers information we think they care about," Keller wrote, in part. "We're sensitive to privacy issues, but in this case we don't see that compelling reason to keep our readers in the dark."

Keller added: "Often — as in the Schwarzenegger case — we withhold the names of children, because they are particularly vulnerable....

"The employee who had Schwarzenegger's child is a more complicated question. We don't know enough about the circumstances to know whether, or in what degree, she was a victim, beyond the obvious fact that there was a serious imbalance of power in the relationship.

"But there's nothing to suggest that reliving the earlier experience is likely to be traumatizing in the sense rape victims describe (she's lived with it — and worked for him -- for 10 or 15 years). And the reality is, there is not much privacy left for us to protect."

Even the smarmier corners of the Web seemed to be withholding the child's name. Though that did not mean it couldn't be found.

A news assignment manager at television's NBC4 in Los Angeles issued a Twitter message Wednesday listing the name and purported age. It appears that the NBC employee, David Reese, got the age wrong.

When I asked him if he would put the information about the child on the air, the response suggested Reese had suffered an instance of Itchy-Twitterfinger Syndrome.

His Twitter message to me about the use of the child's name: "We're not putting it out at all ... I should not have tweeted it."

They talk about the Fog of War. There's also something like the Fog of Celebrity. In the rush to get some part of the story of the moment, proportion and judgment can fly out the window.

--James Rainey

Twitter: latimesrainey

Photo: Former California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has admitted that he had an affair with a former household employee, an affair that produced a child. The L.A. Times, which broke the story, has not identified the child but many other news outlets have. Credit: Matt Sayles/ Associated Press

 

 

Comments

[Limone]

"...proportion and judgment can fly out the window". This statement could just as easily apply to A. Schwarzenegger as the press. His judgment is not going to be celebrated for being clear eyed and honorable. Meanwhile, naming the spawn of the liaison probably does cross the privacy line; no fault of his that his momma set her sights on a philandering piece of Eurotrash. Naming momma is definitely fair game.

[Katherine]

Good for the Los Angeles TIMES! It has shown a large amount of integrity by not exposing the woman and her child while all the other media have them across their front pages. In the United Kingdom, the names of people accused of crimes are not made public until convicted, since the accusation will hang over the person even if they are acquitted. The American media can take a lesson from them, and it appears the Los Angeles TIMES is making an attempt to shield the identities of innocent people.

[Del Williams]

The problem is that this behavior did not happen while he was in office, took place over a decade ago, and was none of our business. All you did was really make Maria look incredibly stupid. He's a guy and she knew he was a womanizer before she married him. You also threw a KID into the lion's den so you can sell some papers and get some clicks. Well, how is that working for ya? How do you feel about the fact your story added to hurting a bunch of innocent people?
You did not name the woman, but you knew someone else would so you are just as guilty of it. Admit this was a political move just because he is a Republican and not a "need" to know story because there is no payoff here. The only way to rectify this is to out all the bastard kids celebrities have been having under your nose who are married. I mean all of them. You lost my respect for this because you became a tabloid not a news site. Hope your new leader is happy with you.

[Julie Moos]

James, thank you for an important piece that explains the decision to name -- or not -- the mother of Schwarzenegger's out-of-wedlock baby. Now that journalists have moved past the naming, though, there remains the issue of what's relevant to publish. I wrote about that (http://ow.ly/4Y3p8) and I'm curious what you think. Thanks, Julie Moos, Director of Poynter Online

[blackaren]

Good Lord, isn't it bad enough the poor woman slept with the old letch and had his child? Now everybody wants to know who she is? Why? Do they want the more salacious details? Was he any good? How many times could he go a night? You know the classy questions. Leave the lady alone. Why she didn't get an abortion is her business. Maybe she just wanted to know Arnie cared. Whatever. Give it a break.

[Michael McFadden]

Good for the Los Angeles Times, and editor Bill Keller. Retaining editorial discretion and integrity defines good journalism from most of what we are now getting in the press, the airwaves, and the internet.

Michael McFadden
Newport Beach CA

[Jas D]

The LA Times' decision was appropriate. Keller's lame excuse for the NYT's post from the gutter reflects a sad degeneration of a once fair standard. What will the NYT compromise next?

JD

[CuteTPye2]

This former governor of the great state of California has disgraced us. He held his secret for over 14 years from everyone, yet, he took office and put his hand on the bible and took an oath of honesty, but, he was not honest.

I will never, ever believe that he did not continue his affair with the mother of this child he father up until the day, week, month, year that she was let go from his household staff. Why was she still working for his family after the birth of her son, and for so many years after, why? Keep your friends close and you enemies closer. He disgraced his family, he disgraced his friends, and he disgraced the state of California with this affair. He is the lowest of low down men who don't give a damn about anyone but themselves.

There is still a lot that we do not know about this, this is probably only the tip of the iceberg.

[Ida Tarbell]

OK, here's what we want you NOT TO REPORT NEXT!: the name of the ex-husband of Arnold's aggressive paramour of the late ninties. A picture of the young man who is Arnold's newly acknowledged son, and an interview with the ex-hubby detailing what he knew about this new foundling entering his family, when he knew it, and the story of his and his wife's relationship over the ten remaining years of their marriages. Enquiring readers want to know! They are puzzled that even the aggressive Gawker and TMZ have yet to open this next obvious can of worms. OH, Ok, there's checkbook journalism afoot. The man envisions a bigger payday than TMZ/Gawker are willing/able to pay. A bigger TV network-sized budget is necessary to pull this great story from the depths. A Barbara WaWa/TMZ joint telecast! OK, there's something else. When did Arnold END his fling with this paramour my former girlfriend called the 'most ugly coyote' she'd seen recently. The silence of the Smoking Gun is also puzzling. Its only a matter of time. Where is the most aggressive combo of Slease/BigMedia when we need them?

[Ann]

So what do you want - a medal?

Doesn't really make sense to me since anyone can find her name (and photo) online.

Funny how the New York Times, a legitimate and respectable paper, not only published her name, but included the kid's birth certificate.

Sorry, but this woman is no victim.