Brand Central Station

Yahoo! News – L.A. Times Faces Anger for Schwarzenegger Coverage

More political shenegans related to the California recall election – and the media, once again, finds itself caught in the middle.

Reading the article, you’ll find that 1,000 readers have cancelled their subscriptions to the LA Times for its coverage of the sexual harassment allegations made against Arnold Schwazenegger. The paper also reported that nearly 400 people have called and criticized its coverage.

Why all the vitriol?

There may be a few reasons worth exploring. First, Arnold did try to inoculate himself starting with his first appearance on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno by predicting news reports of bad behavior, steroid use and womanizing. But how many people really took note of that?

The second reason may actually be more telling. Many people in California find in Arnold a character they can understand and follow. He’s not a sympathetic character by any stretch of the imagination. He’s an actor – or, more accurately, he’s a body-builder who plays an actor. But he also comes across as a stand-up guy who, starting with the Leno appearance, has been vague on policy but willing to admit that he’s made mistakes in the past.

Boy, talk about an interesting sales pitch.

The third reason is, I think, the most accurate reason for Arnold’s appeal and the anger with the LA Times. Arnold is the anti-Gray Davis. He is just about everything Gray Davis isn’t. He’s big and strapping, Gray appears small and meek. He’s got an outgoing personality that bubbles forth, Gray’s attempts at humor and warmth appear forced. People associate Arnold with strong, hero characters like the ones he’s played in movies. The best Gray Davis can hope for is that people won’t draw too many similarities between him and Mr. Smithers from the Simpsons.

So when people are upset with the performance of their state government and the person most closely associated with that lack of performance, they’re likely to vent their frustration in places where they think their voice will be heard.

They’ve signed petitions to get rid of Davis, but that isn’t enough of an outlet. After all, who reads a petition anyway?

Enter the LA Times with its implied criticism of Schwarzenegger and timely articles outlining harassment allegations by fifteen women. To many, these stories serve an important news role in helping to form opinions about candidates by looking at their previous actions (after all, wasn’t it big news that Gray Davis mashed with Cybil Shepherd?). To many others, however, these stories were an attempt to sabotage the anti-Gray Davis and retain the status quo in the state of California.

And, unlike the state government, the LA Times feels it when you cut them off. By canceling their subscriptions, 1,000 people have tried to send the Times a message.

The fact is, in the business of media, 1,000 subscribers to the LA Times is not a life or death situation. But if more activists see canceling subscriptions as a new way to pressure the media, that could change. What kind of place would this be if the media underwent a referendum vis a vis subscription sign-ups or cancellations as a result of their perceived (real or implied) political bias in their coverage?

In the age of electronic and customized news content (via the Internet), I suppose it’s not too hard to believe that media properties might start delivering the news and views people want to read rather than content developed from a specific point-of-view. I’m not sure that’s a good thing.

What do you think?

This information is (c) 2003, Brand Central Station, all rights reserved. If you are interested in receiving news and analysis directly from BCS, please log onto our website (www.brandcentralstation.com) and sign up for our weekly newsletter, the BCS TuesdayReport.