« Hummers Still Humming | Main | The Rich are Different »
DA's office: Use "Extreme Caution" with LA Times reporter
Posted by R. Scott Moxley in Breaking News, Main, Moxley, OC Media
September 26, 2006 1:09 PM
Permalink | Comments (10)
The on again, off again war between the Los Angeles Times and the Orange County District Attorney's media affairs office is on again. Today, DA spokeswoman Susan Kang Schroeder sent an agencywide email "warning" staff about Times investigative reporter Christine Hanley. Schroeder claims that Hanley is "unethical," "reckless," "harasses people and their families," and wastes taxpayers dollars by filing "frivolous" public records requests. She advised prosecutors to use "extreme caution" with the veteran reporter.
The email comes months after Hanley began research for an indepth profile on Schroeder and her husband, Orange County GOP heavyweight Michael J. Schroeder, an insurance company owner and top adviser to both DA Tony Rackauckas and Sheriff Mike Carona. (He is also the former chairman of the California Republican Party and close pals with Congressman Dana Rohrabacher.) The Schroeders have said they would not cooperate for any article written by Hanley.
At the time of this posting, Hanley said she was preparing a formal response. (Check this website for any updates.) However, a Times OC source told the Weekly that Schroeder's email is "ridiculous and an obvious preemptive strike." Other sources at the paper claim that the GOP power couple has complained to Times management about Hanley and the possibility of a hostile profile for more than six months.
Here's a copy of the Schroeder warning:
----- Original Message -----
From: Schroeder, Susan
To: AllStaff@da.ocgov.com
Sent: Tue Sep 26 12:02:00 2006
Subject: WARNING -- UNETHICAL LA TIMES REPORTER CHRISTINE HANLEY
Dear colleagues:
We are lucky in Orange County because the Orange County press corps, for the most part, sets the gold standard. They are ethical, hardworking people who have an important job to do. The media often helps us find witnesses, solve crimes, and help inform the public that justice is done.
Unfortunately, in every profession there are bad apples. Christine Hanley is a reporter for the Los Angeles Times. She was recently assigned to cover our office. She used to cover our office four years ago. She has engaged in repeated unethical behavior including the manufacturing of facts. She is reckless and does not care about the truth. She has been repeatedly confronted about her false stories. She refuses to change.
You should exercise extreme caution in all contacts with her. Because of her past unethical practices, some attorneys in our office refuse to talk with her. I have listed a few of her "greatest hits." I have plenty more examples in greater detail. If you would like to learn more, please feel free to contact me.
In the interest of fairness and balance, I gave Ms. Hanley the opportunity to respond to the issues I set below. She refused to participate.
1. In January 2002, she requested an interview with the District Attorney. He initially declined. Christine Hanley pursued the interview. She promised that she would be the only person involved in the story and she would be fair and balanced. As a result, she was granted an exclusive. She broke both ground rules. When confronted about the violation of the ground rules, she first said her editors "made (her) do it." When told that her position was unacceptable and unethical, she changed her position and stated that she never agreed to the ground rules in the first place.
2. In June 2003, Christine Hanley wrote a story comparing "four Orange County prosecutors" to gang members when there were no such facts supporting the article. She also wrote "it is not clear who reported the shooting" when she could have learned the truth through a simple phone call. The deputy district attorneys in the story had done nothing wrong. When confronted with the truth, she was unremorseful and defensive.
3. In September 2005, Christine Hanley wrote a story accusing our office of obstruction of justice and prosecutorial misconduct. She based this story on a grand jury transcript which was available to her and to the public. There was no excuse for this fabrication because the grand jury transcript directly stated facts contrary to her position. When confronted with the factual errors, she first denied there were errors. When she realized that she could not deny the factual errors because of the transcript, she admitted that she did not have time to read the entire transcript. She offered to write an article correcting the factual errors. She even requested permission from her editors to do so and was granted permission. She was granted an hour-long interview with one of the deputy district attorneys accused of the obstruction of justice and misconduct so she could finally get her facts right. She failed to write the story correcting the facts.
4. Christine Hanley harasses people and their families if she decides she does not like them. She does not like our office because we have brought attention to her factual errors and unethical behavior. She frequently harasses our office and the County requesting nonexistent documents. Her requests are insulting and harassing. She often does not even bother picking up many of her so-called urgent demands. More importantly, it costs thousands of taxpayer dollars to process her requests. A few weeks ago, she even went as far as contacting and harassing my family members. Hanley most recently submitted another public records request in September 2006. The action occurred a few days after we complained to the LATimes and after the LATimes was warned that this letter was going out. Her frivolous actions have cost the County thousands of dollars.
5. Ms. Hanley threatens you with legal retaliation if she does not like what you are doing. She will try to get you into legal trouble if you have the audacity to challenge her ethics or dare to bring attention to her factual errors. In May 2006, she emailed the LATimes attorney and County Counsel alleging that I was "spending awful lot of county time ..." responding to her articles. Instead of seeking the truth and abating her unethical behaviors, she accused me of wasting taxpayer dollars and engaging in illegal activities for sending her emails challenging the facts contained in one of her articles and her breach of ethics.
Finally, beware of the Trojan horse invitations. Be very cautious about agreeing to go to lunch, dinner or drinks with her. If you insist on paying your own way (like I always do as a practice with reporters) she will accuse you of putting that on the County's expense account. If you do accept and allow the LATimes to pay, she may accuse you of being unethical for accepting influence.
She cannot be trusted to keep her word or to cover our office accurately or fairly. Please exercise extreme caution when speaking with her. She will seem friendly in the beginning. If you have further questions about this or want to know what you should do in dealing with her, please do not hesitate to call me.
Susan Kang Schroeder
Public Affairs Counsel
susan.schroeder@da.ocgov.com
Office 714-347-8408
Cell 714-292-2718
CLICK HERE to read The Times Orange County's response to Susan Schroeder's letter.
Comments (10)
Latest Posts
- The "Real" Housewives of Orange County
- When Anaheim Mayors First Hung with the Mexicans
- To Do Tonight 12/3
- The Real Teachers Of Orange County?
- 6 Observations about Ex-Sheriff Mike Carona's corruption trial
- Judge Separates Mike Carona From a Mistress
- Because You're Ugly: Obey and RVCA Warehouse Sales!
- Barbara Coe on Obama: "It's time to STAND UP & BE COUNTED - OR - DIE"
- Gay Marriage Proponents Unite! Mormons to Converge on Costa Mesa Wednesday
- Are OC Congressmen Blasting the Same Janet Napolitano?
Categories
- 241 Toll Road
- A Clockwork Orange
- Apples and Oranges
- Art Review
- Because You're Ugly
- Bootlicker (AKA Gordon Dillow)
- Breaking News
- Carona Challenge
- Carona Watch
- Chronicle a Mexican
- Citizen of the Week!
- Council Meeting Mania
- Crime & Sex
- Crime & Sex
- Daybreak OC watch
- Disney Dirt
- Doctor's Orders
- Eat It!
- Election 2008
- Ex Cathedra
- Film Pick of the Weekend
- Fire Watch 2007
- Free Crap That Came in the Mail
- Gay Marriage
- Gimme That OC Religion
- Gunkist Memories
- Haidl 3 Gang Rape Verdict Coverage
- Haunted OC
- Hugh Hewitt Watch
- ill LYTeracy
- Illegals, Illegals, Illegals!
- Last Night
- Le Receptionist
- Little Saigon Follies
- Long Beach
- Los Angeles Film Fest 2007
- LowBallAssChatter - The Return!
- Main
- Monster Munching
- Moxley
- My Favorite Martin
- Naranja News
- Newport Beach Film Festival
- News Roundups
- Notes from the Banana Republic
- Now Playing
- OC Media
- OC Register Death Watch
- Other Film Fests
- Overheard in Orange County
- Painting The Town Red
- Politics
- Rocco Loco
- Ruminations
- San Diego Comic Con 2007
- Shmortgage Board
- Snap Judgment
- Sports
- That's Classified
- The Media-O-Meter
- The Reg-O-Meter
- The Snow Job Express
- The Tan Nguyen "Immigrants Can't Vote" Letter
- Theatricks
- This Week in The OC Weekly
- To Do Tonight
- TV
- Wacky Vids
- What You Missed
- Yo Smoka Smoka
Monthly
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
- November 2005
RSS Feeds
OC Weekly Insiders
- Local food, music and news blasts
- Free Stuff
September 26, 2006 13:09
The gold standard, eh?
Kang the Merciless ought to know: all that glitters is not gold.
The Schroeders have made it clear they will not talk to reporters who fail to do their bidding, and direct quotes are the gold standard for any reporter.
Class, the word of the day is SYCOPHANT - A person who seeks favor by flattering people of wealth or influence; a parasite; a toady.
September 26, 2006 16:09
We are lucky in Orange County to have reporters from the LA Times and the OC Weekly that will report on politically-sensitive and/or potential government misconduct, without brown nosing to the wealthy and influential in the OC!
Without the ethical and hardworking journalists from these two publications, citizens in the OC would continue to believe they live in the land of OZ, controlled by the one and only wizard (no names needed).
Unfortunately, in every profession there are bad apples and there has been an overabundance of bad apples in the OC for the past 8 years (no names needed).
I am not sure what Christine Hanley is investigating that would require Ms. Schroeder to orchestrate such a long and defaming e-mail on the taxpayers' dime; however, Ms. Schroeder may find it helpful to refer to the Rules of Professional Conduct for all attorneys licensed to practice law in the State of California in addition to issuing an immediate public apology to Ms. Hanley, before the public loses trust in the OC District Attorney's representation or before there is any type of appearance of bias or conflict of interest.
Rule 3-600 - Client as an Organization
(A) In representing an organization, a member shall conform his or her representation to the concept that the client is the organization itself, acting through its highest authorized officer, employee, body, or constituent overseeing the particular engagement.
(B) If a member acting on behalf of an organization knows that an actual or apparent agent of the organization acts or intends or refuses to act in a manner that is or may be a violation of law reasonably imputable to the organization, or in a manner which is likely to result in substantial injury to the organization, the member shall not violate his or her duty of protecting all confidential information as provided in Business and Professions Code section 6068, subdivision (e). Subject to Business and Professions Code section 6068, subdivision (e), the member may take such actions as appear to the member to be in the best lawful interest of the organization. Such actions may include among others:
(1) Urging reconsideration of the matter while explaining its likely consequences to the organization; or
(2) Referring the matter to the next higher authority in the organization, including, if warranted by the seriousness of the matter, referral to the highest internal authority that can act on behalf of the organization.
(C) If, despite the member's actions in accordance with paragraph (B), the highest authority that can act on behalf of the organization insists upon action or a refusal to act that is a violation of law and is likely to result in substantial injury to the organization, the member's response is limited to the member's right, and, where appropriate, duty to resign in accordance with rule 3-700.
(D) In dealing with an organization's directors, officers, employees, members, shareholders, or other constituents, a member shall explain the identity of the client for whom the member acts, whenever it is or becomes apparent that the organization's interests are or may become adverse to those of the constituent(s) with whom the member is dealing. The member shall not mislead such a constituent into believing that the constituent may communicate confidential information to the member in a way that will not be used in the organization's interest if that is or becomes adverse to the constituent.
(E) A member representing an organization may also represent any of its directors, officers, employees, members, shareholders, or other constituents, subject to the provisions of rule 3-310. If the organization's consent to the dual representation is required by rule 3-310, the consent shall be given by an appropriate constituent of the organization other than the individual or constituent who is to be represented, or by the shareholder(s) or organization members.
The State Bar of California's website is available for the public's use, 24 hours a day - 7 days a week, via the internet at: http://www.calbar.ca.gov/state/calbar/calbar_generic.jsp?cid=10179.
September 26, 2006 17:09
I don't know Ms. Schroeder but reporters should admit their errors and not abuse their power or harass innocent government employees. Haven't they learned the importance of this in recent years from the newspaper scandals?
September 26, 2006 20:09
I beg everyone reading Scott "Just Call Me R" Moxley's blog to post nothing mean about Susan. Trust me... Doing this only encourages her, as she truly loves to be loathed. Say only nice things. Example:
"Susan's email was really balanced and restrained. I'm confident that it will cause the reporter reading it to reevaluate her professional approach, and abandon any negative stories that were in the works."
September 27, 2006 11:09
Just another example of the so called OC elite using public office and power as their private play thing
September 27, 2006 15:09
Southern California now has a news council. Ms. Schroeder should direct her complaint to the council to see if it merits a hearing.
September 27, 2006 16:09
Wow. That is some serious venom in that memo. For its length alone, this flak could have used a good editor.
I don't know anything about Christine Hanley's work at the LA Times, nor do I pretend to have details about the things referred to in that remarkably nasty memo. But I do remember her work with the AP in Connecticut many years back, because I was working at a small daily newspaper there at the time. And while I didn't know her very well, I can tell you this much: Reporters talk. We are the worst gossips around and we know who the "bad apples" are in our business far better than any prosecutor's mouthpiece does. Remember how many NYT reporters complained and talked about Jayson Blair long before his editors finally decided to pull the plug on him? During my time in Connecticut, a good seven or eight years, I heard buzz about reporters who played fast and loose with the rules of our trade - Christine Hanley wasn't one of them. To me, and I suspect to any other reporter, that's the best measure of a colleague's credibility.
And it strikes me that if Ms. Hanley was even half as irresponsible as this memo claims, if she had gotten so many stories about the OC District Attorney's office so wrong so many times before - then I would assume no one from that office would be talking to her anymore anyway. Which begs the question: why did Ms. Schroeder feel the need to send out a memo at all? As the Bard once said: Methinks the lady doth protest too much.
September 27, 2006 17:09
[...] Schroeder's Sept. 26 email is available here. [...]
September 30, 2006 07:09
Let's remember this DA has a long, tortured history with the media, including the ugly firings of two previous spokeswomen who refused to do the DA's political biddings.
The DA long has had a hit list of reporters he refused to work with ... as far as the gold standard, that would be Welborn from the Register, who works as much for the DA as the Register.
The DA's office is full of ... attorneys! If the Times has been that wrong, file a lawsuit and get a judge to rule.
October 10, 2006 09:10
Ithink its about time that Police and Judical system listen to people problems and stop blaming small people who can not fight without money.
Orange County Paper and all Orange County big shots ahve brout Paper, Justice System , and Police Depatment with their money.
take a look at my website .
And you know in my case neither police nor the Bank or the Justice did anything to solved this case , I have spend every single dollar and in my Arbitrartion My JUDGE was sleeping.
Because of my accent and race I did not get justice. Keep fighting for your rights.
God Bless
laial