Now It’s Personal
Looks like the Deputy Chief of Staff of California's Assembly Speaker has declared war on me.
I take it as an honor. Being called the "worst" political journalist in the state is a great compliment coming from one of California's most notorious, whining political hacks.
Here's the blow-by-blow. A couple of weeks ago I wrote this column, correctly predicting that Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez would engineer and lead the sell-out of his long-term labor allies in order to benefit the richest gambling tribes in California.
Nunez' top hack, Steve Maviglio, then sent me a blistering email, accusing of me being "presumptive" for predicting that his boss would, in fact, make the deal. He also sent this letter (the second one on the linked page) into the Weekly to protest.
Of course, I was right, and Nunez made the deal just as I predicted. So I wrote this follow-up column to underscore labor's outrage with their former protege.
Nunez' spinmeister then tit-for-tatted with this pathetic blast posted on a hack Democratic web site in which he brands me the worst reporter in the state. Even a less than astute reader will notice that Maviglio's rant does nothing to address the two central issues: 1) that Nunez sold out the unions and 2) I had indeed predicted it. Please notice the reader's comments on Maviglio's whimpering post.
I'll answer this shot in next week's L.A. Weekly column. Who could resist?
July 7th, 2007 at 3:33 pm
Maybe it’s just my screen, but the photo they used of you already seems ‘hit piece grainy.’
You got some nerve Marc. Actually reportly Labor’s dismay on this gambling expansion! This issue could deteiorate into a debate over principals!
July 7th, 2007 at 6:31 pm
Give ‘em hell, Marc. Just give the bottom-feeders hell.
July 7th, 2007 at 6:51 pm
Whatta twerp! I went over and read his horrid little hit post, and the whine factor is pretty impressive. I see that Mr. Maviglio doesn’t dispute your facts, he simply really, really REALLY doesn’t like your opinion about said facts. And you didn’t call him. (The horror.)
July 7th, 2007 at 10:20 pm
Good stuff.
Incidently, I was just at an Indian casino (that is knwon not to be a union shop of course) for the first time…not much of a gambler but there was a Dylan concert…the kitsch and whoring of Native culture was palpable, to the disgusting point of having cop cars emblazoned with “A Progressive Native Community”. They is corrupt capitalists like everyone else. At a point where Natives are placing a serious challenge to the corrupt first nations governmenet appointed tribe system, and laong with the left is presentign a major challenge to the Canadian state, this seemed to be anythign but progressive. Inside it was like Reno.
July 8th, 2007 at 9:36 am
Every time my wife an I pass the High-rise Morongo Casino on the way to the Joshua Tree which I am planning to do in a couple of hours.
My wife an I chuckle that the name of the place fits.
That’s where the Moron’s-GO!
July 8th, 2007 at 12:04 pm
I find it hilarious how these supposedly “tough” high paid political operatives , once they get confronted with facts, become bigger crybabies than they cryingest crier in cryville.
They’re just upset you said what happened – Nunez sold out labor to the few wealthy Indian tribes, and screwed over the unions. They can use all the happy talk about “fighting for universal health care” and whatever, but when push comes to shove, this speaker, and this Democratic majority is one of the most shallow and corrupt we’ve seen in ages. Screw ‘em.
July 8th, 2007 at 12:48 pm
I don’t have a dog in this fight but I am curious about something. Why didn’t you contact them before writing the story? I’m not a journalist so what do I know, but that does seem like a valid point.
July 8th, 2007 at 1:53 pm
I work for an Democratic Assemblymember at the Capitol, have been lobbied by the tribes and by labor for years. The only thing missing from Marc Cooper’s column is the self-equivocation that so many supposedly brave and selfless Democrats are using to excuse themselves from siding with Fabian and the tribes.
Let’s stop kidding ourselves here. This is all about money and always has been. The tribes have more of it than labor, and that type of thing tends to put a legislator’s “ideals” in perspective.
I have a lot of respect for Steve Maviglio and he’s right that almost every day his boss stands up for the little guy. But on this issue, Big Labor was united, and Fabian turned his back on them. Sometimes, right or wrong, that’s what a Speaker does. Be honest about it. Call a spade a spade.
July 8th, 2007 at 2:24 pm
New West Notes will of course be getting into this now as well. (Er, great move, Steve. )
As Marc knows, since we discuss this, I thought and wrote early on that once the casino tribes did their power play of a multi-million dollar campaign urging passage of the compacts, as the Senate had already done, the issue was settled. Fabian wants term limits changed, and the Morongos et al had made it very obvious they would destroy the term limits initiative next February if they didn’t get what they wanted.
By waiting to do what they would inevitably do anyway, Fabian and the Dems actually cost the state money from the tribal revenues.
Incidentally, as I told Steve, Marc is a columnist, not a beat reporter, paid for his informed opinions, and thus is under no obligation to call him for a predictable response which takes up space in Marc’s column.
There’s also a bigger picture of the Nunez operation being under stress, which I’ll get into this week.
July 8th, 2007 at 5:00 pm
My wife an I chuckle that the name of the place fits. That’s where the Moron’s-GO!
Pokey, you may be correct but all I can tell ya is that when I visited Morongo’s new improved poker room for the first time last April, I left $200 richer.
In the meantime, if you enjoy wordplay you’ll equally appreciate the name of the next major casino up the I-15 East… the Agua Caliente.
July 8th, 2007 at 7:24 pm
Bradley, you’re saying Cooper couldn’t call for a “predictable response” and then either ignore it or take one line with a disclaimer? In the L.A. Weekly, anyway, there is no clear division between news stories and Op Ed pieces. Do you grant the Op Ed writer (and their editors) the right print anything? Maybe he should do what he does with a movie review….do a one sided hit piece and then simply mention that he is biased. And I warned ya about that “pow wow” stuff.
July 8th, 2007 at 8:55 pm
“Do you grant the Op Ed writer (and their editors) the right print anything?”
K Nardy, not to be mean, but that’s just plain dumb. Number one, Marc has been researching and writing about casino issues in California since at least 2003, that I know of personally, maybe longer. He’s extremely well informed on the subject and, in the case of the Fabian/casino column, he used his knowledge and research to write an opinion piece that—gasp!— took a position. (That would, y’know, like, be the point of [good] opinion pieces: one looks at the available facts, then draws conclusions.)
Getting the facts right, however, does not obligate one to acquire and/or print the political equivalent of a PR release, which was the point BB was making.
Geeze.
July 8th, 2007 at 9:34 pm
The best journalists, be they columnists or beat reporters, always get a response from the accused as an ethical imperative and as a practical matter.
The “I’m a commentator, not a journalist” excuse is what they get by on over at Fox News Channel and its ilk.
So it’s disappointing to here it invoked on Marc’s behalf.
Marc’s columns can only be improved by talking to all sides. If the response of the accused is canned prevarications, he’s free to rip them apart, and doing so only strengthens the work.
July 8th, 2007 at 10:20 pm
Thats nonsense. Commentators have an entirely different set of responsibilities. Or do you believe that name-your-favorite-antibush-columnist needs a response from the White House when writing about Bush.
July 8th, 2007 at 10:23 pm
“I left $200 richer”
I like poker, which is a game of skill, more than luck. But the casino profits come from slots and blackjack tables where the house always wins in the end.
Would rather bet on real estate (land) or stock market these days.
July 8th, 2007 at 11:02 pm
As one who took issue with parts of Marc’s original piece (mostly for leaving out key details), I will say the huffy response from Maviglio from was pretty lame. He needs to be making more factual arguments to prove Marc went too far.
When I look back at the piece however, I think Maviglio had a point about its racially charged tone. I think it is part of what instictively turned me off. But the larger problem (perhaps he’s getting at) was not trying even mentionion the more complex factors at play (budget woes, legal questions, sovereignty). If it is connected to term limits that is something more plausable than a motive that rests on tribe $ being bigger than union $.
July 8th, 2007 at 11:12 pm
Wrong. Certainly with regard to my pieces, and most others. You should read more columns before making these kind of assessments.
>K Nardy Says:
July 8th, 2007 at 7:24 pm
Bradley, you’re saying Cooper couldn’t call for a “predictable response†and then either ignore it or take one line with a disclaimer? In the L.A. Weekly, anyway, there is no clear division between news stories and Op Ed pieces.
July 9th, 2007 at 1:42 am
“Or do you believe that name-your-favorite-antibush-columnist needs a response
from the White House when writing about Bush.”
The best thing about Marc’s column on this is that it’s packed with first-hand reporting. It’s persuasive because he sites names, dates, bills and counts the cash.
This particular piece is by no means commentary. Just because Marc plays fast and loose with adjectives and stacks the deck source-wise, doesn’t make it commentary. Read it again and ask yourself: where does the “comment” come in. There is none.
Taking a sharp angle in a news analysis piece doesn’t excuse a journalist from giving the “other” side a fair hearing.
If a journalist accuses Bush of bribing FEMA inspectors in exchange for campaign donations from construction companies, then provides the names, dates, and places it too place, she better get a response from the White House, whether she’s a columnist or a beat reporter or an editorial writer.
If she accuses Bush of incompetence or of lying about WMD, she’s making no new or
specific allegations. She can back it up sufficiently using examples and
interpretation of established fact. The GOP, think tanks, pundits, etc. have
responded aplenty with analytical observations on Bush’s behalf. The benefit of
a direct response in such a case is negligible.
I’m sure Marc would agree that journalists only very seldom succeed in persuading critics. Yet they wield immense power. That power comes in maintaining or destroying the media ecosphere. The “quality” press is under siege in the U.S. and the people who stand the most to lose are liberals when people start to conflate unsubstantiated allegation, innuendo, guilt by association
and ad hominem with factual analysis.
Who could fault a columnist for taking his responsibilities in that regard
seriously enough to make sure new allegations were answered?
July 9th, 2007 at 7:40 am
What a shocking surprise…a Democrat throws out personal attacks rather than justify his position.
July 9th, 2007 at 9:44 am
Good thing your attacks (“whining,” “hack”) aren’t personal, Marc.
All I ever said is that you should have called to get the facts or a response from our office.
At least most of the comments hear reflect that.
Have fun with your third column in LA Weekly on the same subject.
July 9th, 2007 at 10:24 am
Bunkerbuster takes Cummings to the woodshed quite nicely, though there are plenty of other reasons his thinking is sloppy here. Can I turn on Cspan any day of the week and see The California Dems holding a press conference defending their posisitions?
Do all the Native Americans Cooper has come in contact with in his extensive reseach enjoy droll jokes about “pow wows?” Maybe some of them do. Maybe ALL of them do. If so, I stand corrected. I must spend more time with the wit and wisdom of GM Roper.
Unless they have changed the format, the Weekly prints articles, some by guest one shots, some by regular writers. There is no offical “Op Ed” section, where I would expect writers to be indulging in the fantasy world of a Dowd or Will.
July 9th, 2007 at 10:37 am
Voices. And, no, I’m not talking about the number or variety of comments. Authors have a ‘voice’ in which they write, and an audience for whom they write, right? What’s confusing to me about the interchange taking place here is whose, and in which, voice? For a general audience reader, like me, I expect to find different voices in different venues. For example, I don’t expect to find a “reporter’s voice” on the opinion pages. Indeed, I might find one, but I don’t expect it, and I listen with a different ear than when I am reading the front page. I expect, and demand, fair and balanced reporting on the news pages. I expect just about anything on the opinion pages. Online news accounts requires I be discerning as to where I am, and what’s being presented since all manner of “stuff” can show up on the “front page.”
I’m a naif when it comes to The LA Weekly News. But, going by my own, self-imposed, first-principles, general-audience-reader rules, my first question has to do with did Marc’s piece appear in the opinion pages or in the news section? If I go to the The LA Weekly News online I find sections like Just In News, News, and Dissonance. The section title Dissonance seems to suggest something different to me than News. Ergo, my antennae are cocked to listen with a discerning ear, because fair and balanced might not be required here.
So where are Marc’s columns appearing? Dissonance. K Nardy argues that The LA Weekly Newsdoesn’t have a traditional Op Ed section. Okay. Then, is it unreasonable for me to view Dissonance as though it were?
July 9th, 2007 at 11:06 am
Nardy…I’d hardly call that the woodshed.
My background is journalism and I have an honors degree in media ethics. I understand BB’s point of view, and differ with it a great deal.
I can assure you that truly militant Native North Americans (residents of occupied Turtle Island) share Marc’s point of view on the Mafias that use dirty money to take over a state-appoint4ed “tribe” system. I showed Marc’s piece to a comrade involved in some of the recent actiosn in Canada and he agreed wholeheartedly
http://news.google.ca/news?hl=en&q=deseronto&btnG=Google+Search&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&um=1&sa=N&tab=wn
July 9th, 2007 at 11:09 am
Maviglio-
Since you commented here would you care to respond specificalyl to the points made?
July 9th, 2007 at 11:13 am
My old man must be turning in his grave. You should really be charging admission. This is pure entertainment. Can you move this matchup to the Shrine? Fabian’s Indians could work the ticket windows for cheap. Labor no doubt would insist on handling the betting and the brothel.
July 9th, 2007 at 11:23 am
A lot of this is newspaper readership 101. If it’s opinion or editorial writing, which Marc’s Dissonance column in the _Weekly_ is and always has been, people read it to get insight into what informed ears are hearing. A lot of the fun goes out of this (for writer and reader) once you add footnotes. If you’re politically interested, you know all this and measure columns and columnists by their track record, and whether or not they tell you anything you didn’t already know, not the density of their sourcing. That’s a tough criterion but Marc’s track record is actually quite good.
Of course, the columnists are in a certain way indebted to conventional journalists and bottom-up reporting, fact-checking, and sourcing rules.
July 9th, 2007 at 11:29 am
From Poynter Online (the Big Gun, as I understand it) http://tinyurl.com/3djoq5 :
So, if opinion, and Dissonance is ambiguous, is the lapse Marc’s or The LA Weekly News’?
July 9th, 2007 at 11:45 am
Journalists would not use four unnamed sources in an article and no one on the record either.
July 9th, 2007 at 12:02 pm
Seymour Hersh does it all the time.
July 9th, 2007 at 12:24 pm
Michael Turmon, I always like your comments and agree with yours distinguishing views and analysis from pure historical reporting, if I may paraphrase.
Evidence that someone is losing an argument is when he insists on authoritative support for another’s personal views ad nauseum and rejects references that are offered, simply because those sources disagree with him.
July 9th, 2007 at 1:08 pm
Unnamed sources. Poynter simply argues that it weakens the case, the Wikipedia entry argues that it could strengthen a case. But, the fundamental premise in both seems to be an avoidance of harm to individuals who can contribute relevant information which otherwise might not be available. I would imagine the determination of harm it is between the journalist and the source.
At least with respect to the New Yorker, it appears that Hersh and his editor hash out whether sources go unnamed and, apparently, David Remnick knows all Hersh’s sources by name. http://tinyurl.com/5zj78
Nothing so far suggests that Marc’s sources are known exclusively to him. It would seem that the arrangement for using unnamed sources resides between Marc and the editors of the The LA Weekly News. Might not the complaint about unnamed sources be better directed to The LA Weekly News?
And, where does the magic “four” come from?
July 9th, 2007 at 2:27 pm
I meant in terms of Hersh – and just about every other investigative reporter’s – public use of unnamed sources. It is a dual edged sword- look at Judy Miller…but unnamed sources can be very important. One gauges one’s trust towards the writer in terms of past work.
I would never trsut David Remnick, but I do trust Sy.
July 9th, 2007 at 2:44 pm
There is no such thing in journalism as “pure” reporting. Every written piece contains a degree of analysis, hence a degree of opinion.
It’s interesting that some journalism consumers here actually embrace the idea that they need to be told what kind of article they are reading before they read it, as if they need to adjust their cognitive performance at the behest of a printed page.
Surely they are intelligent enough to determine whether something is fact or opinion simply by reading it.
Marc’s piece on Nunez is clearly news reporting, regardless of what page of the newspaper it happens to appear on. It uses direct, albeit anonymous, quotations and proceeds from a factual, not analytical or rhetorical or imaginitive, basis.
There is virtually no commentary in the piece. Marc is clearly reporting events, not analyzing or commenting on them.
Just because Marc’s reporting is presented in a hostile, one-sided tone doesn’t mean it isn’t reporting.
The use to which Marc puts anonymous sources here is telling. He doesn’t rely on them to reveal key details of the news story about how or why Nunez voted against union interest.
Rather, he relies on unnamed inviduals to give their opinion about how Nunez actions make them feel and affect them.
Marc could simply provide his own comments on how Nunez’s actions made the writer feel, or how they should make us feel or how they should make the union member feel. But he doesn’t. Instead, he relies on the essential, unmistakable reporting technique of direct quotation because he wants the believability that comes with it.
Anonymous sources should never be used for that purpose. Doing so cheapens the work and in the case of the Nunez piece, Marc really piles them on.
Having said that, Marc’s piece does achieve the essential task of enlightening the reader. I consider myself fully capable of slogging through his tiresome cliches, ham-handed ad hominem and sleazy anonymous quotes to get at the eye-opening reportage. It’s just a shame that I have to. He could be so much better.
July 9th, 2007 at 4:26 pm
Demo staffer made the wise observation–the pro’s call–that this is all about money. To those political pros in the know, it’s always all about money. And of course that’s hard to argue.
But there are some inquiries that shine light into the soul of an organization and its leaders. I’m 55 years old, and I have spent about 50 of those years with the understanding that Democrats supported unions, and that Democrats believed that all workers had the right to organize unions at their workplace. I was never told about the exception for those employers’ whose checks to the party just recently cleared.
But Fabien Nunez and at least some of the Democrats he is elected to lead have agreed to prevent union organizing at Indian-owned casinos. And that is just one of the rights those employees do not have. They are not protected by law from discrimination on the basis of sex, race, religion, age or sexual orientation. Sexual harassment is not illegal there. If a current, past or prospective employee has a discrimination or harassment complaint, s/he can take it to the tribal council for some fair and balanced adjudication.
Let’s be fair, though. California Indian tribes are not the first who have gotten involved in politics to achieve fair treatment, and stayed because there was big money in it.
I would be sorry if the Democrats lost even more contributions from gaming tribes to the Republicans, I suppose. But business is business. Personally, I would feel better for the future of the Democratic Party if it would represent the working people of California and not the business-owners. And that applies whatever the business is and whoever the owners are.
July 9th, 2007 at 7:02 pm
Amidst all this brouhaha , I’d like to know, the real news:
Is Marc next (after Alex Padilla, Fabian Núñez, and Antonio Villar)
to sleep with Mirthala Salinas?
That’s journalism!
July 10th, 2007 at 6:00 am
Let me underline what Rosedog said, this was an (informed) opinion piece. What is the matter with you guys, Marc has done a superlative job of that, and his attackers are expressing their opinions, but I’d suggest that they are not as well informed as Marc.
July 10th, 2007 at 6:01 am
Not as well informed on the subject that is.
July 10th, 2007 at 8:20 am
Good night! Get off of Marc’s back. He’s more honest and objective by a long shot over the New York Times. Complain about them.
July 11th, 2007 at 8:30 pm
I read the two LA Weekly articles in question and they would be more credible if they had some quotes. Not only from the polticians, but from the Indians who are supposedly being banished from certain reservations. Without any quotes at all, how do we know that any of it is true? Are we just supposed to “trust” that the columnist is telling us the truth? Sorry, but that’s a tall order. Give us some quotes!
July 12th, 2007 at 12:34 am
Woody, as usual, is an ill-informed, blathering idiot trading in drivel and invective.
“Give (him) a week at The Nation…” and everyone would resign in disgust at working with a preening moron. Navasky and Vanden Heuvel have done a good job of steering the magazine’s fortunes – certainly compared to right-wing loss-leaders like The Weekly Standard, which is a Murdoch vanity publication to push his political influence at a huge dollar loss.
http://www.forward.com/articles/3417/
The last think in the world we need is to be lectured on fiscal responsibility from a guy who’s tried to sell us on the shipwreck of insanity, spiralling unpaid bills and general corruption and incompetence known as the Bush Administration and the GOP. Maybe you should give your great advice on financial solvency and fundraising to the McCain campaign. It’s like one of those lectures on “family values” and the dangers of gay marriage from Senator Vitter.
July 12th, 2007 at 7:46 am
Unions have never done anything for Native people so you can save your whining. Before Natives had money, union people did not pay a second thought to the poverty that racked the reservations. Now they are left out in the cold and I say they should stay there.
July 13th, 2007 at 7:39 am
Thank you Marc for reporting the honest to God truth about what’s happening with the corrupt tribal leaders working with Arnold to screw the “middle class” –read, anyone who doesn’t want to live in poverty–and the horrifying collaboration by Nunez.
Please publish the names of the 20 brave people in the Legislature who stood up to this kind of contemptible collusion. They stand to be punished by Nunez, and they stood with workers instead. They deserve our deepest thanks.
July 13th, 2007 at 6:43 pm
Marc…..I am new to reading the LA Weekly and thought the article was great. It is wonderful to see someone discussing the behavior of our elected officials. Integrity, honesty and ethical actions have gone out the door ….. all to often, it boils down to the high bidder getting the support of the politicians. This seems to be an excellent example of just that.
July 13th, 2007 at 7:26 pm
That’s the thing, isn’t it?
One of the first things you learn in this business is that not only will corporations and Republicans lie, spin, deceive – even slander – but that Democrats, bureaucrats, public employee unions will do this as well.
You ask the reasonable questions of regulators in your county that people are actually thinking and they refuse to answer them or change the subject. When you call them on it they have to take another call, or have a meeting to go to. And when you go to the source – the Democrats who make the laws in the state – their look tells you they think you’re “disloyal” for asking these questions. You end up calling on professors or other authorities in the field. Your editors praise your work. The usual cranks write in. Nothing changes.
July 13th, 2007 at 10:56 pm
“I think Maviglio had a point about its racially charged tone ….”
Actually, the charge was “racism”, pure and simple. And, from what I can see, only for Marc saying that Nunez and the tribes had a “powwow”. Um, yeah. Right.
Hey, why pull punches at this point? Let me be the first to say it: Marc describing the meetings with the tribes as a “powwow” was an act of genocide against Native Americans. Genocide, I tell you. Which would make Marc JUST LIKE HITLER.
Ah, I now can relax; now we’re in Godwin’s Law territory, where nobody has to check their contributions to a discussion for any possible infraction of any accepted rules of reasoned debate. Phew. Pop a brewski and weigh in!
July 13th, 2007 at 11:09 pm
the racism icharge is so ridiculous I have chosen to basically ignore it. I will say only these two things:
Some of these tribes hold annual carnivals for the tourists and, um, they are billed as pow-wows.
Second, some of these tribes have dug up the bones of the dead, had the DNA scanned and expelled the surviving relatives for lack of racial purity (and to cut them off the gambling dole). You need to go a LONG way to top that sort of racialized politics as the de-enrolled members had all been long time members of the atual tribal communties. So stick the racism charge against me iin ur pipe and smoke it.
July 16th, 2007 at 10:06 am
“So stick the racism charge against me iin ur pipe and smoke it.”
sounds like ol Custer there.