California Split: Dog Bites Dog

In the early days of the century, when typewriters were upright and competition was downright dirty. American newspapers used to rake each other's muck with all the verve they now expend on erring politicians. These days most papers observe an unwritten rule: Thou shalt not take a poke at another practitioner. Last week, however, one of the nation's biggest dailies, the Los Angeles Times (circ. 1,005,000), threw a haymaker at a smaller paper in nearby Long Beach, the Independent, Press-Telegram. In a rambling 20,000-word account spread over seven pages, the Times accused the Long Beach paper of, among other things:

P: Virtually dictating city policies by manipulating a weak city manager for more than a decade, and by placing its executives on important city agencies.

P:Exercising veto power over major economic development projects, in one case causing a developer to cancel plans for a much-needed luxury hotel that city officials had already approved.

P: Systematically suppressing unfavorable news about the city, especially city projects in which its executives were directly involved.

P: Secretly financing a weekly newspaper that printed scurrilous personal attacks against local reformers who had organized a movement to recall politicians supported by the daily.

Times editors insist that they did not set out to do an expose of the Long Beach paper. They dispatched Reporters George Reasons and Mike Goodman to the city six months ago, they claim, solely to investigate a rash of municipal scandals and fiscal problems. "The situation we found was a surprise to all of us," says Times Editor William Thomas. "But [the paper] was a natural focus, so we wrote it that way. I can say that I have never seen a story quite like this."

Neither had the Independent, Press-Telegram, which cried foul with its own Page One story and an editorial the next day. "A bunch of innuendoes," snapped Daniel H. Ridder, editor and publisher of the Long Beach paper (circ. 149,000). Since Ridder's family merged its 19 newspapers into the 16-paper Knight chain last year, the Long Beach daily has lowered its profile in local civic affairs; thus, many of the Times allegations are outdated. But Ridder defends even the previous heavy involvement. Says he: "The newspaper ought to be involved in promoting the community and serving on civic boards." Ridder added, in his editorial riposte, that Times executives have been known to dabble outside their pages in Los Angeles affairs.

Indeed, veteran California journal ists note that the Chandler family, which controls the Times, once dominated the region's Republican Party to much the same extent as the Independent, Press-Telegram is accused of having controlled Long Beach. Furthermore, the I, P-T used its pages to criticize the Chandler family in the 1950s for trying to saddle Los Angeles with a concert hall that would carry the name of Dorothy Chandler but require public financing. (The plan was later altered to the I. P-T's satisfaction.) Was the Times getting even? Or was it trying to grab readers away from its Long Beach rival? Or was it simply reporting a good story?

Whatever the motivation, the Times's allegations struck some sympathetic chords. Mary Ellis Carlton, veteran urban-affairs reporter for the I. PT, agreed that the paper has suppressed many of her reports about city problems; last week she resigned. Some editors at other California papers found the whole affair at least as interesting as dog bites dog, if not man bites dog. Said Sacramento Bee (and former Los Angeles Times) Managing Editor Frank McCulloch: "It's the first indication that we're going to break out of the gentlemen's club and rap each other. I think it's refreshing as hell."

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so viewer discretion is required.