LA Times’ Passive-Aggressive DA Race Coverage

The Los Angeles Times wants District Attorney George Gascon to be re-elected.

They said so themselves directly in their January endorsement of Gascon.

But they’ve also said it in a number of other ways and, also, by not saying anything at all.

Gascon is the poster child of the George Soros-fueled national woke prosecutor movement.  From Philly to Chicago to Oakland and far and wide in between, numerous people who are, shall we say, not big fans of the existing criminal justice have been put in office.

Decarceration, no bail, alternate systems, not charging misdemeanors, keeping sentences as low as possible, not adding things like gun enhancements to cases, absolutely never considering the death penalty, and intense hostility to local law enforcement are just a few of the features of the kind of woke justice Gascon represents.

And people across the country are getting very fed up with the whole movement and “progressive DAs” are starting to be run out of office.  Rising crime –  especially the “quality of life” crimes that Gascon and his ilk refuse to handle – is a top national issue.

That’s why the March 5 primary featuring Gascon and 11 challengers is being watched so closely nationwide. It’s a bell weather test: if ultra-liberal LA thinks the “criminal justice reform” is bad, how can it possibly continue to play in Peoria?

Even though San Francisco DA Chesa Boudin was recalled, the reform movement seemed to remain strong with Philadelphia DA Larry Krasner being re-elected in 2022, though currently he’s in a bit of hot water.

Hence the national importance of the Gascon race.

While the Times has referenced this fact, its coverage of the race has been sparse and, um, tilty.

Since last August, a Google search showed only 7 stories in the Times about the race: one was its endorsement, one the reaction to the endorsement, one a general race guide, and only four stories covering the actual contest.

This shows two things:  First, the Times thinks Gascon is going to make it through the March 5 primary (the top two finishers move on) into the November general election.  If it didn’t there would be daily stories trashing his main opponents (presumably they’re now holding those until the runoff.)

Second, the Times is seemingly aware that Gascon is terribly unpopular which is leading it to a “less said the better” or “nothing to see here so move along” approach to its coverage.

But one of the stories that has run may indicate the Times is trying to ever-so-sneakily actively put its thumb on the scale for Gascon.

A few days ago, the Times ran a story about the race, but not a story about crime figures or neighborhood upset or how to address homelessness or smash and grab robberies or anything like that.  It was about Gascon’s opponents advertisements.

In nutshell, the Times went to great lengths to point out how all of the challengers’ ads seem to be similar.  Same music, same standard shots, and even the same villain: George Gascon.

From the story:

The ads open with a stirring violin track, the subject striding confidently past the Broadway facade of the L.A. County Hall of Justice, or the Temple Street face of the United States Courthouse, or the Art Deco tower of City Hall.

A piano swells under the strings as the star greets first responders, working families or unhoused people.

The screen flashes to a drone shot of downtown, a quick cut to a closeup of Los Angeles County Dist. Atty. George Gascón, and then grainy CCTV video of one of America’s most talked-about crime trends: the “smash and grab.”

If those commercials seem familiar, it’s because L.A. County’s 5 million registered voters are being bombarded with campaign messages that tend to follow a similar script.

So why does this matter? In its specificity it really doesn’t – campaign ads are campaign ads and most across the nation have a certain feel to them, whether they be a  “vote for me” or a negative hit on an opponent.

But the point, what matters about, the story is in its generality. Whether intentional or not (gigglesneer) the Times piece lumps all of Gascon’s challengers into one big indistinguishable lump.  The article’s sub-text, as it were, therefore is that all of Gascons challengers are interchangeable so if you’re not voting for George it doesn’t matter who you vote for.

And with Gascon polling at about 15%-ish, a more evenly distributed vote amongst the challengers makes it far more likely Gascon will ease through the primary.

In other words, despite the Times having published a separate “who will break out of the pack?” article on the challengers, the paper does not want anyone to break out of the pack at all.

That’s because if two or three of the other candidates see a real surge in the coming week that could jeopardize Gascon’s push to make it through the primary.

And that, it appears, is why the story was written: to backhandedly diminish all of Gascon’s opponents.

Well, almost all of his opponents. The Times quotes only one actual-ish candidate in its ad story: Lloyd “Bobcat” Masson, a San Bernardino deputy district attorney whose campaign is tiny and has yet to file any of the required campaign finance paperwork (though if campaign contributions and expenses are below a certain very very low limit he may not have to.)

Why is Masson quoted?  First, he has little chance of making even a tiny dent on March 5, so any votes that can be shunted his way actually helps Gascon.  

And second, Masson has been making his own ads and his latest pushes the exact message the Times wants to push:

The Times describes the ad thusly:

“Why are there so many choices?” an actor groans, surveying a shelf of spray bottles — all identical except that each bears the name of a different Gascón challenger. “They all look the same.”

Subtle, LA Times, subtle…but not subtle enough.