Commentary
SUPPORT US TODAY
DAILY NEWS ALERT
RSS FEEDS

The Quiet Retraction


PRINT     E-MAIL STORY    SHARE

Thursday, Nov. 29, 2007 | On Oct. 10 The San Diego Union-Tribune dropped what it thought was a weapon of political destruction on San Diego City Attorney Mike Aguirre.

The paper came out with a an editorial that declared outright that Aguirre had violated the law and suggested he should be removed from office.

In the shadow of this mammoth accusation was the interesting revelation that members of the city attorney's staff had given him campaign donations. This point produced an equally interesting follow-up in our pages.

But the U-T editorial page wasn't content to merely reveal the questionable fundraising and just opine on that. The paper thought it had found something more profound than just stinky. It uncovered an obscure provision of the city charter that declared that city officials should not accept anything of value from the city employees who work for them. It was a provision introduced more than 70 years ago ostensibly to keep people from giving the mayor a farm animal -- or a Model A -- in order to get a job on his staff.

The U-T declared that Aguirre had violated the law and provided a roadmap for throwing him from office because of it.

The piece was a shocker. The collective jaw of political insiders dropped as everyone tried to figure out what it meant. Was this Aguirre's end?

The thought got the local lodge of the Republican Party so excited it scurried to hold a press conference calling for Aguirre's removal from office. Party leaders didn't know how to respond when it was revealed that other elected officials -- including a prominent member of their own party -- had accepted contributions from staff members. But it didn't matter.

The voiceofsandiego.org news team took a look at it and found attorneys -- who are not sympathetic in any way to Aguirre -- who said the U-T's claim that he had violated the law was bogus.

As the holes in the accusation began to appear, the editor of the U-T's editorial page, Bob Kittle, went out on the circuit to defend his declaration. Like a prosecutor, he was sure of his position and was willing to say someone had pointedly broken the law.

The effort produced this funny exchange between Kittle and Assistant City Don McGrath:

McGrath said he was penning a letter to Kittle informing him of the steps he would have to take in order to avoid being sued for damages.

"I want a newspaper," McGrath said.

Kittle, in an interview, said he had not heard from McGrath and also offered up advice for Aguirre's top legal lieutenant.

"I would say this to Mr. McGrath: In the state of California, truth is an absolute defense against libel," Kittle said.

Kittle defended the editorial, which was criticized by campaign finance attorneys yesterday, saying the charter section being downplayed by the lawyers is "law of the land" and that other legislation regarding elections fail to trump it.

The editorial created such an uproar that the U-T's news staff had to follow-up on it the next day. It even interviewed Kittle.

Here's what the newspaper reported:

Robert Kittle, editor of the Union-Tribune's editorial page, said: "The charter is very clear in black and white. It prohibits city officials from accepting contributions of any kind from their subordinates. The city attorney has patently violated this provision."


Kittle went on the radio two days after the editorial ran to further defend it:

... the city charter is quite clear. It says a city official may not accept any donation of any kind -- nothing of value directly or indirectly. That charter was the people's charter, adopted by the voters in 1931.

Mike Aguirre is very fond of quoting that charter because it's the same charter that created an independently elected city attorney. But, in this case, he's chosen to ignore the requirements of the charter and to take these illegal campaign contributions. In fact, of the six people who gave contributions to him, that he took contributions from illegally, five of them were given very fat pay raises within just a few days.


Two days after running the editorial, Kittle was convinced as ever that Aguirre did something illegal and should be thrown out of office for it.

The U-T's assertion, I noted then, was "the sort of unrepentant accusation for which Aguirre himself has earned notoriety."

And this was my conclusion:

The U-T didn't simply postulate that the law might have been violated. It claimed with certainty it had and laid out a path to justice.

And just like Aguirre has done countless times, the paper took a valid issue, a valid complaint and cheapened it, made it political theater, and potentially only hurt itself.

Eventually, the issue fell off the radar screen. Then the county started on fire.

But, three weeks after the editorial had run, something changed in the belly of the beast. The U-T bizarrely decided to run a retraction of sorts deep inside the local section.

I just learned about it Wednesday from a story in CityBeat. There was no radio appearance, no large headline on the website. Just an inconspicuous paragraph three weeks after the paper had run its editorial.

Let's go through each part of it.

An. Oct. 10 editorial referenced a 1931 San Diego Charter provision that prohibits city employees from soliciting or accepting campaign donations from subordinates or other city employees.


Yes, that is correct.

The editorial noted that state law and the municipal code allow for the acceptance of unsolicited campaign contributions.


Ummm ... not so sure about that. I've read the editorial 12 times. It doesn't note "that state law and the municipal code allow for the acceptance of unsolicited campaign contributions." It just doesn't.

Corrections are hard to write, I know. But no matter how distasteful it is, you can't pretend like your original piece said something that it just didn't.

Pursuant to the California Government Code, state law supersedes the charter on this subject. The headline incorrectly stated that Aguirre violated the law on contributions from staff.


The headline said it; the entire body supported that conclusion.

The editorial also noted that Deputy City Attorneys Kathryn Burton, Don McGrath, Karen Heumann, John Serrano and Walter Chung contributed to City Attorney Aguirre's campaign and all received pay increases shortly thereafter. As clarification, the editorial did not state that any of these individuals violated the law by making these contributions.


Let's translate that last passage into American. We said these guys gave money to the city attorney's campaign. We said they got raises shortly after. But we never said they did anything wrong. Just that it was unclear if they violated the law.

It's a dense, wordy, dodgy way to say the paper was wrong -- but only about a headline.

That's something, at least. Let's review what the original headline said:

Ethical breach: Aguirre violates law on contributions from staff


So all the correction said basically was that the paper screwed up the headline. Oh and also that the editorial noted something that it actually didn't.

Let's be clear: Aguirre has some serious problems and talking about them has earned me and others the wrath of his die-hard supporters.

But the U-T's reporters are trying to write the good and bad about Aguirre and they're trying to get him to take them seriously. They, however, face a relentless barrage of criticism from Aguirre about their supposed agenda to take him down.

It's tempting to write that off and simply read what these reporters have to say. But their editorial page does to them what Aguirre does to legitimate reformers in the city: he ruins their efforts by lodging baseless allegations about their targets. And when he's proven wrong, he mumbles something and moves on.

That's exactly what the U-T just did. Their anxiousness to nuke the city attorney and their inability to admit they were wrong reflects not only on the members of the editorial board, but on their entire paper.

As I said before, Aguirre and the U-T's editorial board are like two peas in a pod. They could end up destroying each other. And would we really be worse off as a community if they did?

Please contact Scott Lewis (scott.lewis@voiceofsandiego.org) directly with your thoughts, ideas, personal stories or tips. Or send a letter to the editor.




Reader Feedback


Comments are now displayed with the newest at the bottom. Not sure you're seeing all of the comments? Click here:

Comments so far on this story:



1. Caitlin wrote on November 28, 2007 9:40 PM:
"Hey, you know what they say; What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Are we supposed to be all fired up even if Kittle is wrong? Aguirre wrongly accuses people in the media almost daily. Don McGrath is an embarrassment every time he opens his mouth. Sue me Don! You know where to find me."

2. Ann wrote on November 28, 2007 10:00 PM:
"That was a lot of wordy stuff for something we had all forgotten about anyway. Obviously if there was any meat to the editorial, Aguirre would be being chased out of office. How about something fresh for the readers?"

3. Scott, you're doing it wrote on November 28, 2007 11:06 PM:
"again. You need to quit obsessing about the UT. We can figure it out on our own. Do your own thing, please."

4. Billy Bob Henry wrote on November 29, 2007 12:16 AM:
"And this UT baloney surprises anyone?"

5. Scott wrote on November 29, 2007 9:58 AM:
"The Union-Tribune is no innocent flower, but without its editorial page, who would be holding Crazy Mike accountable?"

6. RW wrote on November 29, 2007 10:02 AM:
"BBH: Not anymore than your baloney and lies!"

7. Former NCT reporter wrote on November 29, 2007 10:34 AM:
"I thought the whole point of VOSD is to show that the UT (when it comes to San Diego City Hall reporting) is not the only game in town. Don't worry about the silly things the UT does. Blaze your own path."

8. Former NCT reporter wrote on November 29, 2007 10:34 AM:
"I thought the whole point of VOSD is to show that the UT (when it comes to San Diego City Hall reporting) is not the only game in town. Don't worry about the silly things the UT does. Blaze your own path."

9. JJ wrote on November 29, 2007 11:22 AM:
"Have to agree with EVERYONE who posted about this article. You have a good publication and should stop obsessing over the problems at the UT. One the other hand it is hard for me to think of the UT editorial staff without thinking that they could have maintained their original endorsement of Leslie Devaney and all this would not even be under discussion. SD could have had a great city attorney but passed up the chance. Again, coulda, shoulda, woulda. . ."

10. CMR wrote on November 29, 2007 11:44 AM:
"Ditto to NTC reporter's point. _IF_ you spend time on the UT, the story to cover is just how painful it is that with a one hard copy paper monosopy in town they get to drive what folks think is (and is not) important. For example, I will bet a twenty spot that tonights newscasts have a number of TV reporters down at SeaWorld talking about fireworks - as if that was the most critical issue of Thursday, 11/29/07. KPBS already used the B Section to determine that their lead story for the local breakway on Morning Edition would be fireworks. AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT day of news if they had put the article about the Hotel/Cigar factory dispute up top - editorially linking to the fact that the 2 eminent domain initiatives qualified today in Sacto."

11. Charles Foster Kane wrote on November 29, 2007 11:56 AM:
"Lewis, you forgot the First Rule of Good Journalism, which is: Screw the San Diego Union Tribune! Ignore them! Use them for fish wrap, bird cage liner and mulch! Only then can you go forward to blaze the independent media trail of Truth, Justice and the American Way! We all know that if you dress up Bob Kittle in beige with a pointy hat he becomes Humprhey Bogart in The Caine Mutiny and his Queeg-esque vendettas only animate the two or three old bluehairs in La Jolla who haven't yet heard that Guy Lombardo died and Dick Nixon isn't in office any more. The UT's BS Shenanigans will be the death of it yet, and Kittle will have to get a job at Starbucks. When that happy day comes, that story will be page one, column one. As for the rest, it's SOS and another pretty day in paradise."

12. Davy wrote on November 29, 2007 12:13 PM:
"Excellent reporting, Scott. I was impressed that you read the relevant statement 12 times and demonstrated the U-T hiding and denyting their screwup. Accusing people of violating the the law could be grounds for libel, especially since some of the staff people are not really public figures, just faceless bureaucrats. Even though I read the U-T daily, this story got past me because it was hidden. Keep "telling it like it is," Scott. Thanks"

13. Frank In SD wrote on November 29, 2007 12:59 PM:
"Good eye, good citation of another quality voice's (CityBeat's) work on the matter. I disagree with most of the people posting about your "obsession." The Union-Tribune should be criticized, should be improved, and should be checked by other voices. Scott, your obsession with good media is commendable. Keep working to improve all the outlets, even the ones without the noble imprimatur of nonprofit status, or the drive for fairness and objectivity most others retain."

14. Frank In SD wrote on November 29, 2007 12:59 PM:
"Good eye, good citation of another quality voice's (CityBeat's) work on the matter. I disagree with most of the people posting about your "obsession." The Union-Tribune should be criticized, should be improved, and should be checked by other voices. Scott, your obsession with good media is commendable. Keep working to improve all the outlets, even the ones without the noble imprimatur of nonprofit status, or the drive for fairness and objectivity most others retain."

15. rd wrote on November 29, 2007 2:12 PM:
"Very Interesting indeed."

16. Hunted wrote on November 29, 2007 2:16 PM:
"Yes, Scott, it's important to call the UT on the carpet. The public needs to see how they abuse their status as the only mass-audience daily in town. I wish we could parse more of their stories to see what they're leaving out! They commit an enormous number of "lies of omission" to create news stories, and the public is none the wiser. I say beware of anything on their pages."

17. KellyD wrote on November 29, 2007 2:17 PM:
"Scott's piece is indeed important. The U-T is the biggest media game in town and its editorial page has a huge amount of influence, like it or not. That editorial wasn't "silly." It was reckless and, depending on whether or not the under-the-radar retraction satisfies the Aguirre staffers in question, it was potentially libelous. Maybe Voice readers are smart enough to wade through the Kittle-speak, but the majority of media consumers ain't so savvy. I agree with Frank In SD 100 percent. Keep up the good work, Scotty Lew."

18. Dale Peterson wrote on November 29, 2007 4:24 PM:
"Scott got it right the first time. He knew it, they knew it, and we knew it. If members of the press corps. don't police their own, then who will? It is called ethical accountability. I'm surprised with any level of a retraction. I'd love to see somebody put a micraphone in front of Kittle and listen to his spin and squirm explanation. I suspect that he got touched up side the head by a U-T legal opinion. Keep it up Scott. You, and Gerry Braun, write and opine at a higher level than the rest of the crowd. Both of your opinions/writings are not tainted by partisan, political party agendas/strategies/a Thank-you."

19. had to laugh wrote on November 29, 2007 6:04 PM:
"If it weren't so pitiful and spiteful, it would be humorous to see how the U-T takes every chance to bash Aguirre. Even when the City Attorney's office won an appeal, I believe it was, a few weeks ago connected with the de la Fuente case---saving the city a lot of money--the U-T's reporting of this on the front page of the regional section didn't mention Aguirre's name until the "jump" page in the back. And then--had to insert an insult right after his name! Unbelievably petty."

20. Christopher Hall wrote on November 29, 2007 6:33 PM:
"This is EXACTLY the kind of reporting we need more of -- Scott this is an excellent work!"

21. Francine Foraday wrote on November 29, 2007 10:16 PM:
"It's not reporting at all, Scott, when you manage to say that the Union-Tribune editorial board and City Attorney Mike Aguirre are "like two peas in a pod." I will maintain decorum and just ask, what are you smoking? You are as biased against Aguirre as any Boob Kittle. Your remark is as preposterous as Kittle's cracked reading of the city charter. Give the vendetta a rest: Christmas is coming."

22. Steve K wrote on November 30, 2007 8:47 AM:
"No matter what one thinks of the city attorney,it should be obvious that the citizens of San Diego need a watch dog in city hall, to keep track of what our local officials are doing. We certainly can't depend on the local daily, for this function, and the Kroll reported 'climate of corruption' has not been eliminated."

23. LCb wrote on November 30, 2007 9:36 AM:
"Both the U.T. and Aguirre have a habit of making public accusations without adequate investigation. In that sense they are alike. The public should demand better from both their media and their city atty."

24. JIMMIE wrote on November 30, 2007 10:40 AM:
"San Diego County citizens need Scott and we need City Beat. We also need a complete change of the subjective writings of the editorial board at the UT. Do not blame the reporters who do the news daily in the local, or front page section, for the sins of the subjective, hateful, spiteful, immoral troglodytes of the UT Editorial Board. Mike Aguirre's intention in his office was to highlight the immoral, and possibly illegal, power structure, who do control our lives. He has done an excellent job in doing so, and by doing so, he has caused them to be more cautious, and, I can imagine force a few of them to go into temporary hiding until the UT's Editorial Board's black propaganda can get rid of him."

25. jim del mar wrote on November 30, 2007 2:38 PM:
"Again ( for maybe the fifteenth time) When is the VOSD going to do an in depth story regarding Mike and Laurie Madigan? They were playing both sides during the Ballpark era, and now she id denied a pension for innacuracies. Spanish for telling a lie. Too close to home for VOSD? so much for independence. jim del mar"

26. Emily wrote on December 4, 2007 4:02 PM:
"Frankly, I have never read the editorials in the UT and I barely listen to what Aguirre says when he is speaking. What I do do is read the articles in the UT and watch what Aguirre does. I think they both serve a purpose and both are good at what they do most of the time. San Diego needs both Aguirre and the newspaper however unreasonable they are to each other. I am also glad you are here to point out wrongs that need to be " righted". Thanks"


Feedback Rules


  • Users may post more than one comment, but should not pose as multiple users. Multiple posts from the same IP address but with a different user name on each will be reviewed to determine whether abuse has occurred.
  • Posts with overly personal attacks or unsubstantiated allegations may be edited or deleted.
  • Please be patient with the posts -- there may be a delay before they appear on the site -- and make sure to enter the code in the "image verification" box.

    • Add Your Comments

    Current Word Count:
    d98fef1
       

    A Charter School Rebuttal:

     

    Urban Discovery Academy responds to its critics.

    Friday, May 16, 2008 -- 4:24 pm

    Mayor Must Revisit Bargaining Table:

     

    He’s 'done negotiating,' but he’ll have to meet and confer with unions to get pension on the ballot.

    Friday, May 16, 2008 -- 5:11 pm

    'Inviting Further Litigation':

     

    More on the Bajagua scuttling.

    Friday, May 16, 2008 -- 10:30 am

    Sponsored By

    SURVIVAL IN SAN DIEGO

    Foreclosure Flood Continues:

     

    Filings up 103 percent over the year.

    Wednesday, May 14, 2008 -- 11:33 am

    LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

    Seals vs. People? Why?:

     

    Why are we allowing unreasonable people to demand that we spend money to disturb the seal colony that so many people enjoy visiting?

    Thursday, May 15, 2008 -- 1:58 pm

    CAFÉ SAN DIEGO

    'Fresh Face, Strong Voice and a Clear Eye':

     

    Marti Emerald can bring all of these assets to City Hall.

    Thursday, May 15, 2008 -- 7:50 pm

    COMMENTARY: SLOP

    Atkins' Goes for Housing Post:

     

    So much for it 'never crossing' her mind.

    Friday, May 16, 2008 -- 5:19 pm

    COMMENTARY: RICH TOSCANO

    Employment Goes Positive:

     

    After the first year-over-year decline since 1993, San Diego job growth is back in positive territory.

    Friday, May 16, 2008 -- 4:34 pm

    MOST POPULAR STORIES:

    Sponsored by


    Home About Us Contact Us Copyright Privacy Policy Site Sponsorship
    Copyright © 2008 voiceofsandiego.org. All Rights Reserved. Terms of Use Privacy Statement