A huge story developed late Monday afternoon (7/19/04) that President Clinton's National Security Advisor Sandy Berger was the subject of a serious criminal investigation that he unlawfully removed classified terrorism documents from the National Archives.

        So where did the Los Angeles Times place this giant story when its paper rolled out the next day? It was buried on the bottom of page A13, in the "In Brief" section of its paper. The piece entailed a puny 90 words, fewer than the number of words in the two paragraphs you have just finished reading.

        After the media firestorm all day Tuesday on the Berger burglar story, the Times begrudgingly put the story on its front page of Wednesday's edition under a downplaying, weak heading, "Amid Probe, Berger Cuts Ties With Kerry Camp." The article is below the fold and tucked under a large, driveling piece on ... ugh ... Halliburton. Despite the fact that Berger made a well-publicized "mea culpa" appearance before a horde of cameras on Tuesday, the Times only published a tiny file (?) photo of Berger. Not only was the photo displayed on page A11 (where the story continued), but its size barely exceeds one square inch.

        Can anyone honestly argue that the Times would give the same scant attention to the same story if the name were Condoleezza Rice or Donald Rumsfeld?

[** Update: Thursday, 7/22/04** ... Despite the fact the Washington Post and other news outlets continued to advance the Sandy Berger story, the Times stashed a modest Berger update to page A18.]

[** Update: Friday, 7/23/04** ... Except for a Letter to the Editor, the Berger "Burglar" story is nowhere in the Los Angeles Times!]

[** Update: Saturday, 7/24/04**  ... Two Letters to the Editor ... that's all folks!]

 

TheMediaReport.com says ... Puh-leeze. The Los Angeles Times should come with a "Kerry 2004" sticker.