L.A. Times outsources reporting to barefoot children chained to their Macs:

An Open Letter to Ashley Powers of the L.A. Times

July 10th 2009

Dear Ashley,

We had an exchange of emails recently regarding your July 2nd 2009 L.A. Times Column One article about the illegal dumping of Australian "lobsters" that left me rather dissatisfied. I emailed you asking you a few simple questions, and in all honestly, your answers were so vague and insubstantial that they trouble me. Since we were not able to have the honest and open exchange of ideas that I was seeking, I feel compelled to address the problems in a public forum i.e. here on The Radioactive Birdwatcher. At the end of this blog posting I am placing our recent email exchange unedited, except for the email address that I used. Each email has a Roman numeral next to it, so that readers can work their way forward i.e. read I, then II, then III. The reason that I am doing so is that I feel compelled to document to the public the lengths of your evasiveness and prevarication. My reasons for doing so are not personal. I am doing so because I am deeply concerned to see that a major newspaper such as the Times is employing writers/reporters who are (a) either inexperienced, and don’t understand the role of the reporter in society [hence incapable of understanding the true nature of my query into your education and training], (b) do not want to admit their inexperience or lack of knowledge about a subject matter, and have decided to prevaricate, or (c) are biased.

Let’s start with the last accusation, (c): The L.A. Times is a favorite target of conservative organizations that attempt to portray it as flagship of the mythical Liberal Media. Ignoring the fact that the Liberal Media is a myth, let me say that your Column One article of July 2nd, 2009 does the conservative movement proud. It paints a detailed, emotional portrait of the Eddys that causes the reader to develop an emotional relationship with them. As a writer, I can see what you’re doing. After 18 paragraphs, you introduce the “bad guys”. You never give the name of any of the agents involved, or their agencies. This dehumanizes them, leaving them as mysterious figures (Government agents in bulletproof vests, oh my!) in the readers’ minds. You also point out that some of the agents were armed, but don’t mention why. This is an obvious attempt to portray the Nevada authorities as gun-toting bullies. After the raid and legal problems are discussed, multiple quotes from a secondary source are given that contain no facts, merely sarcastic statements by un-named individuals (did you attempt to contact these letter writers?). Quoting (anonymous?) letters to the editor of an unknown newspaper is a stupefying act lazy journalism.

Working our way backwards towards (b) and (a), let me just put into plain English: I asked you repeatedly what your degree is in, and whether or not you are educated in the biological sciences. I politely explained to you why I was interested. Despite the fact that I offered you a hand, and tried to lead you in a good direction, you ran off, and hid. Anybody who takes the time to read our exchange will see this is the case. The reason that I asked about your education was that I gave you the benefit of the doubt, that perhaps you are unaware of how important it is for us humans to stop running around, releasing non-native animals into exotic habitats. If you were trained in the biological sciences, you would/should be aware of these issues, and this would have been reflected in your article. If you are not trained in the biological sciences, it would have been refreshingly honest of you to say, “Hey, I didn’t know that. Tell me more. Who is an expert that you can refer me to, Tom” Instead, you come across as having the idea that you’re the big-shot L.A. Times reporter who knows what she’s doing, and doesn’t need input from some pushy reader. Oh, but if only that were true, Ashley. If only it were true. If your article was much better written, you wouldn’t have loudmouths like me questioning your qualifications.

Let me put it another way. The best doctor in the world isn’t the one who thinks he so smart, that he knows everything about every branch of medicine. The best doctors are the ones who say “Mrs. Goldfarb, I’m a cardiologist, I don’t do kidneys. I’m sending you to Dr. Gupta, the urologist down the hall.”

Moving along:

Newspapers—including the L.A. Times—should be neither liberal nor conservative; they should be neutral. To borrow a phrase from the Faux News Channel, your article should be “fair and balanced”. It isn’t. In a two page article, paying microscopic and vague lip service to a vaguely described worry about an endangered species that nobody in or out of Nevada has ever heard of, deep in the bowels of two pages of sobbing over the case of the Eddys, is about as biased as one can get. What is a Railroad Valley Springfish? Why should I—the reader—care? Why should the reader care about any endangered species? Why were the nameless, faceless Nevada “authorities” wearing guns? Did you interview them? Did they refuse interview requests?

The whole point of this letter is not to attack, or belittle you. It is written to admonish you for thinking that as the person who got lucky enough to get hired at the L.A. Times, you now have superpowers, and don’t need to ask questions. You don’t, and neither does Bob Pool, and the sad part is that neither one of you gets it. Consulting with experts helps you avoid sticking your foot in your mouth. This letter has been sitting on my hard drive for a couple of days, while I have been waiting for you to get back to me, but I think that you have decided that “this conversation is over” (my quotes) so you leave me no recourse than to take this public. If the L.A. Times is to survive as an institution, it needs to return to its previous standards of journalism. If the paper goes belly-up because of bad writing, then you’ll be without a job. I want the Times to be around 10 years from now. I want you to have a job 10 years from now, but you need to get better at this reporting thing.

Tom Miko
The Radioactive Birdwatcher

********************************************************************************

I.

From: Thomas G. Miko [mailto:XXX@XXX.edu]
Sent: Thu 7/2/2009 2:18 PM
To: Powers, Ashley
Subject: desert lobster question



Hi Ashley,



What is your education in i.e. what is your background, outside of journalism?



Tom



Thomas Geza Miko

Radiation Safety
University of
(XXX) XXX-XXXX
*******************************************************************************

II.
From: Thomas G. Miko [mailto:]
Sent: Mon 7/6/2009 9:09 AM
To: Powers, Ashley
Subject: RE: desert lobster question



Hi Ashley,

I am interested in your education and training before you became a writer for the Times. After reading your Column One article about the Eddys in Nevada, I surmised that your degree is not in the biological sciences, so I was curious as to what your degree and training/experience are in. The article was well-written, but there was an important part missing: why the State of Nevada is so insistent about not letting the Eddys carry out their plans. This is important, because the Times' readers will gain the impression that this is just another case of evil government bureaucrats keeping people from achieving their dreams, without their (the readers') understanding the important biological i.e. ecological issues involved. If your degree is in law, political science, or business, then it would be unfair of me to expect you to be conversant in such biological topics. On the other hand, someone above you in the Times organization e.g. the editor should have thought of these questions, and asked you to look into them.

Tom

Thomas Geza Miko
Radiation Safety
University of
(XXX) XXX-XXXX

-----Original Message-----
From: Ashley Powers [mailto:Ashley.Powers@latimes.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2009 5:32 PM
To: Thomas G. Miko
Subject: RE: desert lobster question

Hi: Um, I'm not sure what you're trying to get at ...

**************************************************************************


***III.

Ashley,
While I am composing an answer to your last email below, allow me to point out that you still haven't said what your background is in.
Tom

Thomas Geza Miko
Radiation Safety
University of
(XXX) XXX-XXXX


-----Original Message-----
From: Ashley Powers [mailto:Ashley.Powers@latimes.com]
Sent: Monday, July 06, 2009 10:25 AM
To: Thomas G. Miko
Subject: RE: desert lobster question

Tom: I think the story was very clear about the state's position: The crayfish had the potential to eat Railroad Valley spring fish eggs and thereby harm a threatened species. Officials went back and forth with the Eddys over their permit, which only allowed them to sell to licensed commercial operators. In the end, wildlife officials got a court order to extinguish what they perceived as an ecological threat. It's all in there.


III.

Ashley,
While I am composing an answer to your last email below, allow me to point out that you still haven't said what your background is in.
Tom

Thomas Geza Miko
Radiation Safety
University of
(XXX) XXX-XXXX


-----Original Message-----
From: Ashley Powers [mailto:Ashley.Powers@latimes.com]
Sent: Monday, July 06, 2009 10:25 AM
To: Thomas G. Miko
Subject: RE: desert lobster question

Tom: I think the story was very clear about the state's position: The crayfish had the potential to eat Railroad Valley spring fish eggs and thereby harm a threatened species. Officials went back and forth with the Eddys over their permit, which only allowed them to sell to licensed commercial operators. In the end, wildlife officials got a court order to extinguish what they perceived as an ecological threat. It's all in there.