Scribbling Monk

See UPDATE below: L.A. Times replies
Michelle Malkin has a post on a L.A. Times story that highlights sloppy, lazy journalism or worse. The story's online headline is, "A Job Americans Won't Do, Even at $34 an Hour." I think I'm smelling an agenda.

Yesterday, the Los Angeles Times ran a piece of open-borders propaganda masquerading as journalism, which featured a Riverside, Calif., landscaper named Cyndi Smallwood who claims she can't find workers to dig ditches even at $34 an hour.

The claim seems preposterous, but the Times assures us that Smallwood has no ideological ax to grind. She is "ambivalent on immigration reform," the Times reports. Just an ordinary landscaper, you know.

Malkin got a tip from Beyond Borders Blog which challengs the Times assertion that Smallwood has "no ideological ax to grind."

With just a few seconds of internet searching Beyond Borders Blog discovered that

Smallwood is president of the Orange County chapter of the California Landscape Contractors Association, and is a member of the association's "Immigration Task Force." The activist group opposes the "Punitive Immigration Reform Bill Proposed by Rep. Sensenbrenner."

Looks like maybe a Times reporter and a couple of other fact checkers should get out a little more often. Maybe they should apply for a job with Smallwood.

Beyond Borders Blog goes on to say:

Wow! If traveling to Washington DC to lobby for a trade association, planting pro-guest worker program quotes in multiple press outlets and backing a specific faction in the immigration reform debate is considered ambivalence on immigration reform I’d like to see the Times version of an activist!

I followed Malkin's link to e-mail the L.A. Times reader's rep.

It's no wonder your paper's fortunes are sliding, and taking journalism's standards with it. Bloggers spent 30 seconds debunking Streitfeld's claim that Smallwood's "ambivalent on immigration reform."

Was this laziness and incompetence on the part of the reporter and editors? Will you go back and let readers know the full picture of who this woman is? I'd really like to know as my local paper uses LATimes WaPost copy often and I want to know how much of it is a lie.

This is just another facet of agenda journalism that arises from a class of journalists who truly believe they are smarter, wiser and better-intentioned than the average citizen. Debating perspectives has never worked in the newsrooms I've been in. Pointing out serious lapses of journalistic ethics has. Click the link and tell the L.A. Times what you think.


UPDATE: L.A. Times replies
Kudos to the L.A. Times reader representative Jamie Gold. He sent this very prompt reply.

Thanks for your comments about yesterday's L.A. Times article that reported how difficult it is in at least some fields to find individuals to do work even for $34 an hour. I understand that you think the article was incomplete in describing one of the main individuals interviewed.

The Times story, which I've pasted in below, said this about Cyndi Smallwood:

Smallwood is ambivalent on immigration reform, saying demands for immediate citizenship by those who entered the country illegally are offensive. But without a guest worker program, she says, her company probably will not survive.

It also reports this about Smallwood:


Smallwood has two signed photos of Bush on the wall of her office, one of them thanking her for contributing to the Republican National Committee.
Will she be making another contribution to the Republicans anytime soon?
"Not hardly."
That's due in large measure to her anger at her congressman, Rep. Gary G. Miller (R-Diamond Bar), who does not favor a guest worker program.
In January, Smallwood had a contentious meeting with Miller at his district office in Brea. She said Miller twice challenged her assertion that she couldn't find workers for $34 an hour, saying his son would work for that wage and offering to send him over.

I think the article makes it clear that Smallwood has very strong opinions on the subject -- she is for a guest-worker program (but against granting immediate citizenship) -- and more precisely, the article reports why she has those strong opinions. While "ambivalent," out of context and without any other facts about the person, might not be the best word, I think the article as a whole makes it clear what Smallwood wants in the way of immigration reform, and why she wants it.


Thanks again for taking the time to write to us about this.

Jamie Gold
Readers' Representative

My reply:

Jamie,
Smallwood's opinions may be expressed but her affiliations and activism for the cause isn't even mentioned. Your reporter mentioned Bush's photos on her wall and her current dissatisfaction with the GOP (good for emphasizing the negatives on Bush and the GOP) but not her activism. Isn't that a bit one-sided? She's not just another average citizen.

Did you read the blog link I e-mailed? It's pretty clear and includes links to Smallwood's connections which are not mentioned in your paper's article. Here's the link again in case you missed it. http://langamp.com/borderblog/?p=2519

Your paper's code of ethics doesn't address this situation directly but, in the section on anonymous sources, says:

... a source’s point of view and potential biases should be disclosed as fully as possible. For instance, “an advisor to Democratic members of the House Foreign Affairs Committee” is preferable to “a Congressional source.”

Does this type of disclosure only apply when someone is not named?