“You are entitled to your opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts,” is an oft- quoted truism from the late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan. It has become more and more relevant as the ability to spread disinformation becomes easier over time. It is necessary, not just advisable, for newspapers to be referees between truth and fiction.
Over the nearly two years since it re-launched, Santa Monica Next has spent way more time than I would have dreamed correcting the record. People sometimes complain to me that Next spends too much time on politics and media critiques. Believe me, I would much rather be riding bike lanes and exploring bus routes than listening to eight-hour City Council meetings, but as a journalist it is nigh impossible to sit back while things that are provably false are injected into the public discourse and decisions are made by the government based on these false narratives.
That’s why it’s essential for media outlets to print the truth.And when there are opinion pieces with misinformation presented as fact, then it’s incumbent on the newspaper to not print the misinformation or note that what is being said cannot be proven.
And in the past couple of weeks, the Santa Monica Daily Press has failed its readers in that regard.
In a letter last week that is mercifully no longer available on the website, Arthur Jeon attacks local political party Santa Monicans for Renters Rights as tools of the city’s developers. While there is certainly room for debate on which candidates for office have the best plans for how the city should grow and develop, Jeon brought his own facts to the table, and they were published without hesitation by the Daily Press.
In this case we’re not talking about his opinion about SMRR’s motives or on whether or not building more housing raises or lowers the cost of housing for individuals; but about his assertion that SMRR is in the back pocket of Cyprus Equity, a local real estate equity fund. Santa Monica Democratic Club President Jon Katz (speaking for himself and not the Dem. Club or SMRR) corrects the record in his response, later printed by the Daily Press:
In fact, SMRR and the Democratic Club both voted to formally *oppose* Cypress Equity’s attempted ballot measure which would have exempted multi-family buildings from the City’s real estate transfer tax, thus incentivizing more of the development Jeon and his friends on Council claim to oppose. Thanks to the efforts of these two groups, the measure failed to qualify for the ballot this fall.
Not having learned anything from this fiasco, the Daily Press printed an op/ed by Dr. Houman Hemmati, who framed the current City Council race this way:
In November, Santa Monica voters will be presented with two distinct visions for our city: one represented by the five Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) and Santa Monicans for Renters’ Rights (SMRR)-aligned candidates, and the other by a group of four centrist Democrats—Mayor Phil Brock, Councilmember Oscar de la Torre, Dr. Vivian A. Roknian, and John Putnam—who are supported by Santa Monicans United (SMU) and the Change Slate.
There’s one major problem. Despite this framing and Hemmati’s repeated use of “DSA/SMRR” as a way to define the United Democratic Slate (Dan Hall, Ellis Raskin, Barry Snell and Natalya Zernitskaya) and another candidate Hemmati doesn’t like,Ericka Lesley, there is no connection between these candidates and the DSA. I was able to find this out pretty quickly by:
- Asking the five candidates if I missed an endorsement by the DSA or if there was any contact between their campaigns and the DSA. (no and no).
- Reaching out to people I know in the DSA and asking the same thing (no and no)
- Looking at the DSA-LA endorsement page to see if there was an endorsement in the Santa Monica race (no) and then even checking the 2020 endorsements as Raskin and Zernitskaya had been endorsed in previous runs. (no)
While it is great that we have access to independent media, social media, and even the Daily Press letters page to set the record straight, it should not be up to citizens to fact check what they see in the newspaper on a daily basis.
And this isn’t about politics, it’s about facts. In “Opinion, Facts and the Media,” Charles Andrews took on former Mayor Kevin McKeown for several letters he wrote criticizing Mayor Phil Brock. While I personally don’t share the conclusions that Andrews makes in the column, the opinions presented are clearly opinions, and he leaves it up to readers to conclude what McKeown’s motives may or may not be without asserting them himself.
Jason Mastbaum, who sometimes writes for Next, responded to Andrews by noting that Brock and his ballot mates in 2020 make up three of the seven seats on the Council and that with Lana Negrete (a councilmember who was endorsed by the three in 2022 and had their backing for an appointment to her seat after another member stepped down) they have a majority.
This is how an opinions page should work. Someone witnesses or reads something in the newspaper. They respond with context and their own experiences with a letter or opinion piece. A columnist takes issue with the frame presented and then another writer has a chance to respond. They are all dealing with the same facts (in this case, the reality of builder’s remedy projects).
The New York Times learned the hard way what happens when one errs too often on the side of giving people a platform and letting them use it to spread misinformation under the guise of “giving equal time to both sides” or “not censoring someone’s opinions.” After publishing op/eds by a U.S. Senator that repeated right-wing talking points as facts (they weren’t) and then-Vice-President Pence’s views on the Coronavirus (based on unvetted statistics); the paper’s editorial page editor was forced to step down.
Facts matter, and labeling something as opinion doesn’t mean one can just lie with impunity.
I’m personally very hesitant to criticize the Daily Press. In 2017, I led an effort to purchase the newspaper and run it as a nonprofit (it would be very different from what Next is, BTW). As a result, I worry that any critiques of the SMDP would be seen as sour grapes. But with election season underway, it’s more important than ever for the paper of record to double down on a commitment to not print op/eds full of where the writer’s opinions are presented as hard truths.
