It would appear from Arnold York’s postscript to the correction run in last week’s paper that the editor prefers to cling to allegations even when they are overturned by facts. Truly the mark of a thoroughly professional journalist! It isn’t enough for the editor to accept the word of the President Emeritus, the Chairman of the Board and the legal attorney representing Malibu Stage in regard to the false allegations recorded by his reporter, Laura Tate. As Inspector General of the City, he demands to see the Company’s full audit — which if he were any kind of journalist at all he would know is publicly available to him under the laws governing not-for-profit companies registered under a 501-C3. He slyly hints “there might be some innuendoes” drawn from the paper’s erroneous first story and so long as “innuendoes” can be drawn, he, in keeping with the tabloid mentality rampant on The Malibu Times, will draw them.
Seeing himself as the Official Tribunal to which all defendants in Malibu disputes must submit their briefs, York magnanimously declares, “If there is anything incorrect in our previously run stories we would be happy to publish corrections.” Had his staff properly researched their stories in the first place, there would have been no need either for a retraction or further corrections. But that would involve diligent fact-checking, legalistic examination of potentially libelous statements and the kind of editorial overview which is utterly alien to The Malibu Times.
Well here are a few other bloopers from Laura Tate’s story of Dec. 14 in addition to the ones grudgingly acknowledged by Mr. York’s published correction.
1. Ms. Tate wrote that “the turmoil” at Malibu Stage was caused by “conflicts with the Artistic Director” — despite the fact that previous published accounts also attributed these problems to an attempted take-over by a small cabal from the previous board. There were two sides to this story; Tate zeroes in on only one. Selective facts is one of the first no-nos taught in Journalism 101.
2. The audit was not, as Tate writes “suggested by the previous board” but by the City Council in its meeting on Sept. 27, 1999 as a corollary to its grant, and voluntarily agreed to by all parties. (See Council transcript.)
3. Tate wrote “many charges incurred by Marowitz were used to take people, including some of the former board members, to lunch.” Which blithely by-passed the fact that ALL expenditures were theater-related, invoiced and duly accounted for. But then, an “innuendo” is far more sexy than a fact.
4. Tate reported that “only one play ‘Stage Fright’ had been produced in the 10-year existence of the theater” which is untrue as “Shakespearean Salad” was also a full-fledged production as was Donal MacDonald’s “Lord Chesterfield.” Many of the “Staged Readings,” with full costume and scenery, were themselves tantamount to “productions.” Over the years, there have been, in fact, over 20 such presentations; several of them performed on the stage of the Smothers Theatre in Pepperdine. In preparing her story, Tate never once checked her facts with the Artistic Director (a primary subject of the story) nor tried to obtain corroboration of information gathered. This is the kind of behavior which, on a “real” newspaper, would have gotten her fired.
The motive behind that story, I am reliably informed, was that the Times considered itself a “friend of the theater.” With friends like these, who needs enemies?
Charles Marowitz