Submitted by Joe Mathews on August 12, 2008 - 3:30pm.
First off, I'm a former LA Times employee, and continue to contribute to the newspaper. That said, I have no problem criticizing the Times, its reporters, or its management. In fact, I have very little positive to say about the paper's current direction. I don't know the reporter, Paul Pringle well, but he has an impeccable reputation and I've found his reporting to be very, very solid when he's written on things I've also covered. I've never heard of the Adam Reeves person you mention. I know nothing about contracts. I never saw a reporter in my 8 years at the Times have any influence over who received contracts from the paper. Reporters rarely even know people from the business side. The conspiracy theory outlined here seems, at best, implausible. But more important, the post does not dispute any of the facts of the story. This union local president spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in union funds on payments to family members. Blame the messenger all you want, but those facts have not been challenged. And that kind of behavior is simply unacceptable. It's not only union members who are hurt by this behavior. Freeman is very much a leader in the labor movement that governs Los Angeles, and rightfully so. He's a terrific organizer. The labor movement has sold itself -- and in many cases, acted -- as a reform effort, organizing around the cause of rebuilding Los Angeles' middle class. Whatever you think of the policies pursued by labor, the movement is significant and its cause is worthy. But, in large part because of its power, the labor movement needs to be transparent and accountable not only to its members but to the public. Maintaining public credibility is crucial. And Freeman's spending undermines that credibility. That's why, despite the loyalty and affection other union leaders feel for Freeman, he has to go. Joe Mathews Irvine senior fellow, New America Foundation www.newamerica.net/blog/blockbuster-democracy/
In Response to 'Get It Right'
First off, I'm a former LA Times employee, and continue to contribute to the newspaper. That said, I have no problem criticizing the Times, its reporters, or its management. In fact, I have very little positive to say about the paper's current direction. I don't know the reporter, Paul Pringle well, but he has an impeccable reputation and I've found his reporting to be very, very solid when he's written on things I've also covered. I've never heard of the Adam Reeves person you mention. I know nothing about contracts. I never saw a reporter in my 8 years at the Times have any influence over who received contracts from the paper. Reporters rarely even know people from the business side. The conspiracy theory outlined here seems, at best, implausible. But more important, the post does not dispute any of the facts of the story. This union local president spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in union funds on payments to family members. Blame the messenger all you want, but those facts have not been challenged. And that kind of behavior is simply unacceptable. It's not only union members who are hurt by this behavior. Freeman is very much a leader in the labor movement that governs Los Angeles, and rightfully so. He's a terrific organizer. The labor movement has sold itself -- and in many cases, acted -- as a reform effort, organizing around the cause of rebuilding Los Angeles' middle class. Whatever you think of the policies pursued by labor, the movement is significant and its cause is worthy. But, in large part because of its power, the labor movement needs to be transparent and accountable not only to its members but to the public. Maintaining public credibility is crucial. And Freeman's spending undermines that credibility. That's why, despite the loyalty and affection other union leaders feel for Freeman, he has to go. Joe Mathews Irvine senior fellow, New America Foundation www.newamerica.net/blog/blockbuster-democracy/