Most Popular
Recent Blog Posts
SLIDESHOWSNational Features >
print | email | write comment
Press ClipsWhy did the Metro kill Hugh Hewitt's piece on Larry Agran?R. SCOTT MOXLEYPublished on October 03, 2002Photo by Debra DiPaoloThe Sept. 19 issue of OC Metro is on the stands absent Hugh Hewitt's regular political commentary. Hewitt told friends in a Sept. 23 e-mail that Metro editor Kevin O'Leary "spiked my most recent column on the Irvine elections" and Mayor Larry Agran, a Democrat. Angered, the former Richard Nixon aide and Republican Party mouthpiece said he has "ended my 12-year run with that publication." "While I regret having to leave OC Metro after so many years, the choice between being silent about Larry's plans for the community and keeping a column is really no choice at all," Hewitt wrote. "It's not journalism if you can't say what you think during an election season." O'Leary did not respond to the Weekly's questions about the column. In Hewitt's place, O'Leary inserted his own commentary about North Carolina Senator John Edwards' presidential hopes for 2004. Hewitt implied that the publication killed his column because it was too anti-Agran—who is in a bitter, re-election bid. He said Agran "is really beginning to feel the heat from his indifference to schools and the voter's distaste for the Centerline." Christina Shea, an Agran nemesis and former Irvine mayor seeking office again, told the Weekly she is "greatly troubled" that the Metro silenced Hewitt. She blames Agran. "In my opinion, it is just Larry's way of putting pressure on folks, like he is known to do, to keep others from sharing their right to comment on his positions," she said. "I was told he was behind this." But an unanswered question looms: Why would the Metro kill an anti-Agran column now? During his lengthy stint at the paper, Hewitt routinely berated Agran. The unpublished column did more of the same. COMPROMISING DEALS AT THE TIMES—AGAIN A review of dozens of recent Times news articles about Edison failed to find a single disclosure that the paper and the energy company are partners. But the Times doesn't want its readers to worry. "A newspaper has business relationships with many large companies, many of which we cover," Goldstein said dismissively. Goldstein must suffer from amnesia. In January 2000, the Times suffered a devastating blow to its image after it was forced to acknowledge a secret relationship with the owners of the downtown Staples Center. The Times had published a glowing, 164-page Sunday Magazine profile of the sports arena without disclosing it had a profit-sharing agreement with the owners of the building. Embarrassed Times management guaranteed its readers they would in the future avoid all associations "that might compromise our integrity or damage our credibility." With news of the Edison-Times alliance, it's obvious the paper's ethics guarantee had a fine print loophole or an expiration date. WHO? WHAT? WHEN? WHERE? WHY? HOW? BUSH BONER
write your comment
|