LA Times Admits Wrong 'Facts'

Pharma / TRT
1

Turns out the LA Times was so eager to name lots of famous baseball players as steroid users that they did not bother on getting any validated evidence or in fact any evidence seen with their own eyes. They’ve just had to retract, big-time:

(Partial excerpt)

In granting a government motion to unseal the document, U.S. District Court Judge Edward C. Voss in Phoenix referenced The Times’ story from last year and said he was "compelled to point out what appears to be an example of abusive reporting.

“The [Times] article trumpets the success . . . in ending the ‘months of speculation’ surrounding which major league ballplayers Jason Grimsley named. . . . A review . . . proves that The Times never saw the unredacted affidavit. . . . At best, the article is an example of irresponsible reporting. At worst, the ‘facts’ reported were simply manufactured.”

The unsealed affidavit contradicts a story The Times published Oct. 1, 2006. Citing anonymous sources, including a Grimsley confidant and an individual “with authorized access to [the] unredacted affidavit,” The Times’ story said Roger Clemens, Andy Pettitte, Brian Roberts, Jay Gibbons, Miguel Tejada and Segui and strength coach Brian McNamee were named in the document.

In fact, Clemens, Pettitte, Gibbons and Roberts were not named. Also, The Times’ report said Grimsley alleged that Tejada used anabolic steroids. The only mention of Tejada in the affidavit was a conversation he had with teammates about baseball’s ban on amphetamines.

After the document was unsealed Thursday and the actual names revealed, Times spokesman Stephan Pechdimaldji said, “We regret our report was inaccurate and will run a correction.”
Steroid affidavit unsealed

2

O, what a tangled web we weave
When first we practice to deceive.

3

I wonder where the LA Times printed this retraction in their paper edition. The NY Times loves to do hit stories like this that destroy peoples’ and businesses’ reputations and then print their retractions, well after all damage has already been done, as deep in the paper as they can get it.

Newspapers have lost so, so much credibility in the last 5 years.

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Turns out the LA Times was so eager to name lots of famous baseball players as steroid users that they did not bother on getting any validated evidence or in fact any evidence seen with their own eyes. They’ve just had to retract, big-time:

(Partial excerpt)

In granting a government motion to unseal the document, U.S. District Court Judge Edward C. Voss in Phoenix referenced The Times’ story from last year and said he was "compelled to point out what appears to be an example of abusive reporting.

“The [Times] article trumpets the success . . . in ending the ‘months of speculation’ surrounding which major league ballplayers Jason Grimsley named. . . . A review . . . proves that The Times never saw the unredacted affidavit. . . . At best, the article is an example of irresponsible reporting. At worst, the ‘facts’ reported were simply manufactured.”

The unsealed affidavit contradicts a story The Times published Oct. 1, 2006. Citing anonymous sources, including a Grimsley confidant and an individual “with authorized access to [the] unredacted affidavit,” The Times’ story said Roger Clemens, Andy Pettitte, Brian Roberts, Jay Gibbons, Miguel Tejada and Segui and strength coach Brian McNamee were named in the document.

In fact, Clemens, Pettitte, Gibbons and Roberts were not named. Also, The Times’ report said Grimsley alleged that Tejada used anabolic steroids. The only mention of Tejada in the affidavit was a conversation he had with teammates about baseball’s ban on amphetamines.

After the document was unsealed Thursday and the actual names revealed, Times spokesman Stephan Pechdimaldji said, “We regret our report was inaccurate and will run a correction.”
Steroid affidavit unsealed [/quote]

4

I have noticed that disgraceful practice also, and likewise most particularly with the New York Times though hardly limited to them.

It’s impossible to tell from the online edition what page it is in the paper edition. But it does seem it was in the Sports section.

Wrongful reporting of this magnitude should have been a front page (of the entire paper) retraction but I rather doubt that it was.

It will be interesting to see if there are some massive lawsuits resulting from this.

5

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:

It will be interesting to see if there are some massive lawsuits resulting from this.[/quote]

I can only assume that Mitchell had his lawyers review everything before the report was released. Still, it would be a good sign to see some of the players that were wrongfully defamed sue Mitchell and the newspapers. It was unethical for the Mitchell report to name any names.

What they should have done is issue subpoenas if they thought that they had sufficient evidence to accuse these players of breaking the law. What the Mitchell report represents is more akin to McCarthyism than anything else and the players named deserve redress IMO.

6

I might not have been clear; I didn’t mean that Mitchell was possibly subject to lawsuit, as a completely valid defense is genuinely having belief that a statement is true and having a basis for this belief that could satisfy a reasonable person. (That is not the exact legal requirement, but it’s very similar to that.)

Mitchell had reasonable basis to consider the LA Times to be a valid journalistic source reporting facts.

Who I meant as possibly subject to lawsuit is the LA Times, as it appears, and for that matter a judge is now saying, that they simply didn’t have reasonable basis to claim that these athletes such as Clemens were steroid users or named as such in the affidavit in question. They went and destroyed reputations without waiting for adequate corroboration or evidence. So I would think that very well could be actionable.

I agree with your take that the Mitchell report smacks of McCarthyism. I’m not defending it on other grounds, just that I don’t expect it was libel.