Because she’s a fellow reporter. If she were a city councilwoman or actress, they’d camp outside of her place and stick cameras in her face everywhere she went. But the news media doesn’t report on other media entities with aggression because they don’t want that done to them. (Taken from a conversation with a journalist.)
Another answer is that stake-outs are expensive and this story is not important enough to merit one. It’s also a horribly intrusive thing to do to somebody and should only be done for a defensible purpose.
Daily News city hall reporter Rick Orlov says: "I think the reason is what would be the point? We know they have a relationship and it wouldn’t be a surprise to see them together. It would be different if there were denials."
A gossip says: "I think it’s the Latin mayor thing–no one wants to look "racist", actually. But look at Andres Martinez–he was dating a publicist and he got the axe. She’s wasn’t even a source."
The news media doesn’t want to appear racist by going after Villaraigosa and doesn’t want to be aligned with people who are racist.
Antonio, like most womanizers, is charming. Unless he’s hurt you, it’s hard to wish ill on him. I think the news media like him and don’t like to see him fall.
It’s not surprising that the city hall beat reporters did not break this story. Beat reporters are loathe to tick off those they must confront regularly. Also, if the mayor is famous and popular, then beat reporters get to bask in that glow. Your stories get better play. You have little incentive to knock the mayor off his perch.
Another reason The Los Angeles Times has been lagging on this story is low morale. People so fear for their jobs that they are not doing their best work.
I’ve heard that Antonio’s staff took great pains to keep him away from attractive female reporters wanting interviews.
Unfortunately, I have not worked in the MSM since the summer of 1987 when I did the news on the weekend for KAHI 950 AM in Auburn, CA (and phoned in some stories about deadly car accidents and the like (for about $5 each) to the Associated Press). So I’m out of touch.
Why hasn’t anyone written a thorough story on Mirthala Salinas? She’s a fascinating power-f—er.
If I had pitched my story in January about Antonio Villaraigosa (not a bloke likely to fall victim to the siren call of monogamy let alone celibacy) not wearing a wedding ring (and other signs his marriage was over and that he was screwing around) to every news media outlet in Los Angeles, none of them would’ve picked it up (not with me and not on their own). They only began reporting on this story when blogs (particularly LAObserved.com — the tipping point for the MSM for stories broken by blogs — meaning once a story has made LAObserved.com, even if the story came from a blog, it is now real news) forced them to.
Steve Smith emails: "I thought she lived in Sherman Oaks, and that it was her mother who lived in the Studio City condo. Anyways, that might explain why there aren’t reporters camped out in Studio City."
This Villaraigosa story points up the need for The Los Angeles Times to add a gossip column. A lot of news starts as gossip.
On issues such as abortion, there is a values disconnect between the press, which is secular, and the public (40% of which attend religious services weekly).
Chaim Amalek emails:
I don’t know a thing about LA media save that nobody here pays any attention to it, unless a story has something to do with drunken young celebrities or Hollywood. And that’s because they don’t do much where they obviously should. For example, LA media properties should own the immigration story, but they don’t, and for the obvious reasons (their laziness’s, and especially their fear).
Local TV news in most cities is merely there for entertainment. You are spot-on in noting that anchors are hired for their looks and social reliability, and not for their ability to do real reporting.
Other cities (e.g., New York, Chicago) have/ have had real journalists on local TV doing real reporting at least some of the time.
Dan Rather lost his job over the consequences of his failure to understand typewriter technology circa 1970.
Walter Duranty not only was not fired for covering up reports of Stalin’s horrific crimes (e.g., his war of extermination against the Kulaks), he was awarded a Pulitzer Prize for his reporting, which the New York Times continues to brag about every year when they (predictably) win another such prize and publish a page noting all their past winners. Don’t you think the paper of record should at least put an asterisk by his name to acknowledge his crimes against the truth?
Who is today’s Walter Duranty?
To what degree do LA media elites fear Mexicans, and how does that fear color their reporting of the ongoing Mexican invasion of the United States?
How many Negroes does the average white LA Times reporter socialize with after work?
Ask this fellow how diversity has enriched his life.
