Silent Treatment

As a white man, I enjoy the privilege of thinking that the system usually works fairly – for me. After the LA Times fired me as a favor to the LAPD, however, I saw the system’s unfairness at work. No matter what happened, it became clear that there was nothing that could have convinced them to admit they’d made a mistake.

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Share on RedditDigg thisShare on StumbleUponEmail this to someone

21 thoughts on “Silent Treatment

  1. Thanks, Ted Rall… I finally got logged in. That was funny–I unknowingly chose a user name that was your webmaster’s name, throwing the system off. Good luck with going BEYOND the LA Times – like Truthdig’s editor did. Indy media is best, anyway 🙂 Julieanna “CartoonCom” here from L.A. area

    • Wait, I’m supposed to have a User name of “CartoonCom” – but instead it came up as my full name: how can I be really provocatively truthful in this country with my own name?! lol Please change my User name to “CartoonCom” . Merci.

  2. Four things:

    1. The dub. In some spy novel, one of the characters explains that the way to frame someone for child pornography is to composite an incriminating photo from two other photos (one of the person and one of the child), and then photograph that photograph. The negative thus produced is without signs of tampering. I don’t know if modern technology would “solve” that gimmick. However, the same question for an audio dub. Can an “original” physical tape be shown to be original, rather than a tampered copy presented as the original?

    2. At this point, a settlement for Ted (as far as the LAPD is concerned) is irrelevant. If they do end up paying out, it’s a pittance. Even if Ted gets $10 million, it’s a pittance. The point of all this was to put the fear of god into reporters. The technique is right out of the Scientology playbook. How many reporters will jump up now to challenge the LAPD?

    3. Where’s my damned “Snowden,” Ted?

    4. And did you get that e-mail about the change in credit card?

    • It’s much like the uber-low quality photos of Big-Foot, it may or may not be a photo of Big-Foot, and Big-Foot himself may even think that it could (perhaps) be himself. Even so, unless the photo is professionally fine-tuned by a trustworthy handler of evidence, nobody can be sure. Even after fine-tuning, somebody can still claim insufficiency. This is what’s happening here.

      The LA Times convicts Ted with horribly low-grade evidence. When Ted “cleans-up” the evidence and it marginally shows the Times wrong, the propaganda professionals say that it’s still insufficient TO PROVE TED INNOCENT. Meanwhile, it is certainly just as insufficient to sustain the Times conviction of guilt.

      How much will the police union pay the Times to keep them geeked out and subservient? When men with guns and explosives threaten your survival, What’s your life worth?

      DanD

      Meanwhile, Ted continues to suffer from a bad-haircut day.

      DanD

  3. Remember Helen Thomas? She was a journalist extraordinaire with the White House Press Corps for six decades. Then one day she publicly told a tasteless truth about Zionland and its war-criminal tyrants had her unceremoniously thrown under the bus, not even a kiss.

    It those who deem themselves a warrior-caste that are the most immoral of opponents. With the redefinition of America’s law enforcers as “Warrior-Cops,” it is revealed to the general public exactly who has become yet another primary enemy of the public.

    DanD

  4. I’m still wondering why you haven’t at least filed a defamation of character lawsuit, or something similar. Is the lack of support so low that even an “ambulance chaser” lawyer won’t consider it? I wouldn’t have even hesitated, considering the ridiculous, mysterious 14-year-old audio file that they used as a reason for their actions. Why haven’t you made any “real” effort? By real, Ted, I mean actually filing a suit. He said, she said, just only goes so far..

  5. I have no idea as to why you would EXPECT them to do anything. If the mainstream media continues to ignore you, then the LA Times can just sit back and continue to ignore you. You see, by now it is pretty evident that – as many others have suggested – they were simply looking for an excuse to rid themselves of someone who was making the the LAPD very uncomfortable with a person they supported with a platform to criticize and call them out. So – they got an excuse and used it to fire you. None of this is really about fairness or responsibility in journalism, because responsibility in journalism only exists nowadays as far as you can throw it. If you throw it, and someone with enough clout or visibility picks it up, – well, then you may have a chance. But if not, it is simply ignored by most people – who have a very limited attention span. And, really, not much has really changed. The same requirements of 30 years ago still remain. If you can’t light a fire under someones pants, whether 30 years ago, or today, you can’t expect a response. So – while we have the “Tower of Babel” now known as the Internet available, if your can’t go “viral”, then you become last week’s news….

    • Rikster,

      I don’t think they were looking for an excuse to fire him to please the LAPD. The LAPD wanted, very specifically, to make an example out of Ted. Possibly, they’ve got similar things in the works for others who challenge them.

      But this whole thing was clearly aimed at being self-evident to any observer as a warning to others: if you screw with the LAPD, you will be not just fired, not just laid off, but publicly humiliated and rendered unemployable.

      • What @Alex said. The LAPD came to them asking for a favor. Given the political and financial ties between the LAPD and the LA Times, and the apparent cover given to them in the form of the audiotape, they thought they could say yes without catching much shit as a result.

  6. Well, Ted, since from what I understand the death penalty is currently banned in California (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_California), you don’t seem to be risking your life – at least not in the so-called «criminal justice system» – when you jaywalk, although you may be subject to being handcuffed while being served a notice. But what about that notorious Californian three-strikes law, which, as I understand it, mandates courts to hand out stiffer sentences even for misdemeanors if a person has thrice offended against the majesty of the law ? Do you risk life imprisonment without possibility of parole should you jaywalk again two times ?…

    Henri

      • As I recall, the real screw of the three strikes law was that if your first charge was a felony, and you were out on parole, any violation of parole (a bounced check, for instance, shoplifting a tube of toothpaste) could be counted as another felony. I think Andrade got 50 years for stealing something like five videotapes.

      • Who says jaywalking is necessarily a misdemeanor ?!! But more seriously, DanD, being neither a resident of California nor an expert on its peculiar perversions of justice, my comment about California’s three-strikes law was based upon certain passages in the relevant English-language Wikipedia article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-strikes_law) :

        Twenty-four states have some form of “three-strikes” law. A person accused under such laws is referred to in a few states (notably Connecticut and Kansas) as a “persistent offender”, while Missouri uses the unique term “prior and persistent offender”. In most jurisdictions, only crimes at the felony level qualify as serious offenses; however, notable among jurisdictions where misdemeanor offenses can qualify for application of the three-strikes law is California, whose application has been the subject of controversy (see Controversial results section).

        I was also intrigued by the following statement, which also deals with the situation in California :

        A more recent study, in 2004, analyzed the effect of the legislation as a means of deterrence and incapacitation showed that the three strikes law had no significant effect on deterrence of crime.

        We shall have to wait to see what might be the effects on jaywalking….

        Henri

Leave a Reply