NBC's Lauer Asks if L.A. Times 'Vindicated' in Smears Against Schwarzenegger in 2003
Talking to Los Angeles Times reporter Robin Abcarian about the Arnold Schwarznegger scandal on Thursday, NBC Today co-host Matt Lauer wondered if the liberal paper was now justified in accusing the Republican of groping women as he ran for governor of California in 2003: "In some ways, eight years later, do you and other folks at the paper feel vindicated?"
Abcarian argued: "We don't feel vindicated....We felt at the time we published those allegations in 2003 that they were important, they were verified....There was no question to us that he was a serial sexual groper at the least." Both Lauer and Abcarian seemed to miss the fact that Schwarzenegger admitted to a consensual affair with his housekeeper, not to sexually harassing and assaulting women.
Lauer noted that in 2003, the Times "got a lot of heat for your reporting. It was called a political hatchet job. I think you lost subscribers." Abcarian dismissed accusations of bias: "...the fact that the timing was so close to the election was simply a fact of an compressed election cycle."
Here is a transcript of the May 19 exchange:
7:08AM ET
(...)
MATT LAUER: I want to take you back to 2003. The Los Angeles Times did some extensive reporting on situations surrounding then candidate Schwarzenegger, involving some women and groping episodes. And you guys got a lot of heat for your reporting. It was called a political hatchet job. I think you lost subscribers. In some ways, eight years later, do you and other folks at the paper feel vindicated?
ROBIN ABCARIAN [REPORTER, LOS ANGELES TIMES]: Well, you know, that's funny that you would ask that. I think vindication is the wrong word. We don't feel vindicated. We don't feel not vindicated. We felt at the time we published those allegations in 2003 that they were important, they were verified. Many of the women stepped forward and allowed us to use their names. There was no question to us that he was a serial sexual groper at the least, and the fact that the timing was so close to the election was simply a fact of an compressed election cycle. So vindication is not really what we're in it for because we always believed at the time that these were true stories and we happened to deal with some fallout.
LAUER: Robin Abcarian. Robin, thanks for your time this morning. I appreciate it.
ABCARIAN: Thank you.
- Kyle Drennen's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
And someone seems to miss the
Submitted by Satchmo on Thu, 05/19/2011 - 11:41am.
And someone seems to miss the fact that Arnold is a liar, dishonest, and untrustworthy. But remember, it's a conspiracy to believe someone was set up.
"And someone seems to miss
Submitted by Beukeboom on Thu, 05/19/2011 - 12:14pm.
"And someone seems to miss the fact that Arnold is a liar, dishonest, and untrustworthy."
And you're not?!?
The Los Angeles Times got it right! As someone who supported
Submitted by Rush Fan on Thu, 05/19/2011 - 12:18pm.
and voted for Arnold for governor, I was furious at the liberal paper, at the time, for attempting to "smear" a Republican candidate. It wasn't too long after he took office that the Governator transformed himself into the worst governor in the history of California.
Now it turns out that the liberal rag Los Angeles Times deserves CONGRATULATIONS for revealing the former dirtbag actor/governor's actual character.
Shut up Paultard.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 06/25/2011 - 1:12am.
Dishonest? Oh you mean like Ron Paul? The man that says to go back to the gold standard. Now why is he wanting to go back to the gold standard and get rid of the Fed?
Maybe it is because he owns nothing but gold mining stocks. Hmmmm. Oh and bear funds that will make a killing when the dollar and stock market crash after switching to the gold standard. Hmmmm.
Dishonest. Liar. Untrustworthy. Just like the paultard Satchmo and his King Paultard - Ron Paul.
Check you out hunting down
Submitted by Satchmo on Sat, 06/25/2011 - 1:26am.
Check you out hunting down old blog entries and threads! And still neither topical nor engaging. Oh, well. Better luck next time!
I wonder if we went through your posts in reverse chronological order, how many would it take before we hit upon one that was: 1)actually relevant to the blog entry, and 2) your maturely participating in the discussion and exchanging ideas.
Oooh, I know! We could gamble on the over/under!
Poor little paultard.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 06/25/2011 - 2:09am.
First it whines because the word bully won't have a conversation with it. Now it whines the word bully is stalking it on a public website. Poor paultard. Then it whines again cuz the word bully won't talk about what it wants to whine about.
Ok Paultard. You fill your diaper. Then start whining about it. Then we can have a conversation about how want to have a conversation about how full your diaper is. Mmmmmkay?
Now go buy some more gold stock Paultard. Ronny commands it.
Oh, no. Not at all. I was
Submitted by Satchmo on Sat, 06/25/2011 - 9:40am.
Oh, no. Not at all. I was expressing admiration for your cleverness!
Sure, they're vindicated.
Submitted by motherbelt on Thu, 05/19/2011 - 12:03pm.
Sure, they're vindicated. They were just way ahead of the curve.
\sarc
Since the L.A. Times never
Submitted by Beukeboom on Thu, 05/19/2011 - 12:09pm.
Since the L.A. Times never actually PROVED their groping allegations then vindication doesn't even enter into the picture even though Arnold's infidelities are now acknowledged and proved. Unwanted sexual assault (groping) is far different than consensual sex.
Also conveniently forgotten ...
Submitted by Tom Blumer on Thu, 05/19/2011 - 12:21pm.
... is the fact that the Times deliberately held its story until days before the election, and that its treatment of Schwarzenegger was inconsistent with how it resisted doing anything with Bill Clinton's TrooperGate in the early 1990s.
Arnold, the LATimes, and rotten onions.
Submitted by Gary Hall on Thu, 05/19/2011 - 2:02pm.
Steve Lopez (LAT's staff columnist) penned this yesterday:
Allow me to use the subject, John Edwards, the LAT's lack of curiosity (and the nat'l MSM) as an available example.
Tim Rutten, another liberal LAT's staff columnist) in a bold and very unusual admission (Aug of 2008) nailed the day in and out workings of the LA Times rather well, on the Edwards' matter:
Back to Lopez's claim - that the LA Times was unfairly charged with targeting Republicans - Schwarzenegger, in that moment.
The example, for the other shoe, was then Gov. Gray Davis. A former LAT's reporter, Jill Stewart Jill Stewart (now Deputy Editor at the LA Weekly) had penned a column about the abuse (physical) of a Davis female employee. It began:
The result of the abuse, which included violently shoving a female employee:
Later, another Lopez comrade, Doyle McManus, reported that the LAT's investigated and found nothing (don’t even bother making the phone calls, one might surmise).
Jill Stewart appeared on MSNBC and CNN with the story - but not the LAT's.
The LAT’s, may occasionally be forced into reporting news which is bad for Democrats, but it's never their intent to do so.
Are we laughing?
Both Davis and Schwarzenegger needed to be peeled as onions; Davis for his abusive behavior while on the government payroll, and Arnold, for his personal life choices - and for not being honest with the people.
The LAT's needs to be discarded, as one would discard a rotten onion.
(;~/ gary
I am no Arnold fan. But the
Submitted by buddyc on Thu, 05/19/2011 - 4:01pm.
I am no Arnold fan. But the LA TImes had a story with one point of view, which was held back and exposed in the closing weeks of the campaign and coordinated with Grey Davis' campaign. Almost like the Bush Guard story by Dan Rather. Is Arnold a womanizer? Yes, so what?????????????? At least he paid for the child with his money and not someone's campaign contribution.
When has Lauer even mentioned Edwards issues? Until then Matt can kiss my @$$.
Who gives a rat's ass about
Submitted by jessieH on Thu, 05/19/2011 - 4:55pm.
Who gives a rat's ass about "Arnold"? NBC is a terrorist company, owned by G.E. & Soros.
A Little Late, But Still: Total Recall Of The Gropenfuhrer!
Submitted by TheReal7Sticks on Fri, 05/20/2011 - 12:35am.
I mean it was bad enough that the A-hole kept acting like a total A-hole in advocating for such disastrous laws like Jessica's Law (which has actually endangered the lives of children more than it has claimed to protect) and letting himself be the man-whore of the prison guard unions in regards to defeating an absolutely necessary revision of the Draconian three-strikes law (I'd have gone a step further and got the damned thing repealed. We don't need to be imprisoning people who stole a box of pizza for a life sentence, and even if we wanted to, WE'RE BROKE! ) Thank god for Jerry Brown, he's going to have to repair all the damage that POS Austrian did to the people of California.
Speaking of Total Recall
Submitted by sentry_99 on Fri, 05/20/2011 - 1:20am.
You think Moonbeam Brown is going to fix anything? Like he did the first time in office? That's almost as pathetic and funny as claiming Jessica's Law puts children in more danger.