Tag Archives: attack ads

The Lies Behind The Racist Video Attack On Janice Hahn

The racist attack video directed at LA Councilwoman Janice Hahn, the Democratic candidate in the upcoming special election in California’s 36th Congressional district, is based on a thoroughly discredited three-year-old TV report on the local FOX affiliate, KTTV, which is owned and operated by the network.

While admitting the ad was offensive, TPM reports, the National Republican Congressional Committee said the ad made a good point, linking to the KTTV report as if it hadn’t been totally discredited within a matter of weeks over three years ago, as the newspaper I work for, Random Lengths News reported at the time.

The FOX report, by Chris Blatchford, aired on KTTV on April 30, 2008, and was systematically debunked by reporter Gene Maddaus in the Daily Breeze on May 14, 2008.  The Breeze is a suburban Republican newspaper that is generally critical of Hahn, but has some excellent reporters.

Summarizing his findings, Maddaus wrote, “a review of the Fox 11 News story found major flaws that undermine its central allegations. Most notably, records and interviews show that the gang intervention workers identified in the report have not received city funding. Additionally, a convicted rapist was wrongly identified as a gang intervention worker, and Hahn was mistakenly accused of providing funds directly to gang workers.”

The sole piece of hard evidence presented by FOX connecting Hahn  to the rapist, Steven Myrick, was a routine certificate for participating in a summer jobs program in 2004, a year before the gang task force was organized, and two years before his rape arrest. This was surrounded by Myrick’s own self-serving puffery about how connected he was–standard-issue BS that no reporter worth his salt would rely on without substantial corroboration, which FOX did not have. In fact, the evidence Maddaus dug up showed that Myrick was simply lying.

In addition to gang members, the FOX report was based on interviews with two LAPD officers with an axe or two to grind.  Ryan Moreno and Chuck Garcia were suing the department for having been re-assigned from the gang task force in Watts, which they accused Hahn of being involved in.  (Hahn simply passed on community complaints about disrespectful attitudes, which were incompatible with the LAPD’s efforts to embrace a less confrontational “community-based policing” approach.) The two officers lost their case in mid-June, thus giving the FOX report the air of a failed pre-trial effort to taint the jury pool. Hahn was not a named party in the suit, and everything relating to her was excluded by the judge as irrelevant before the trial began.

As senior editor at Random Lengths News, a biweekly serving much of Hahn’s district, I co-wrote a story about this whole affair and its ramifications in local politics, which appeared on June 13.   The article referenced the Breeze article, and summarized some of its main points thus:

  • “Most notably, records and interviews show that the gang intervention workers identified in the [Fox News] report have not received city funding.”

  • The group cited, Unity One, runs almost entirely on funding from private sources. Gang intervention workers like Jones are paid from that private funding, not with taxpayer money.

  • According to records provided by Toberman Neighborhood Center [the premier local social service agency] city funding that passed through Toberman goes to pay salaries for Bo Taylor, the president of Unity One, and Skip Townsend, a program manager. Hahn did not obtain that money for Unity One.

  • A “convicted rapist was wrongly identified as a gang intervention worker.”

We also noted that “recent events have left some people wondering how much blood was drawn, and whether any of it will make a difference in 2009, when she [Hahn] is up for reelection–or if it was simply intended to damage her chances for further higher office.”

In the years since then, we have reported on recurrent rumblings by mostly-rightwing individuals repeatedly promising the imminent launch of a recall campaign.  These reached an apparent high-point last summer (story here), only to collapse into dust. The disproven gang allegations are part of a grab-bag of shifting complaints  they have cited, but they have repeatedly undermined their own credibility, first by their own secretive methods–always excusing themselves by promising to go public when “the time is right”, second by failing to ever actually launch their public campaign, and third by repeatedly mentioning these publicly-refuted allegations.

In trying to defend himself, the video maker, Ladd Ehlinger Jr. said, in part, “Claim victimhood all you like, but how many people were victimized by your coddling? There’s a reason Mayor Villaraigosa took the program away from you. He’s a Democrat. So are you. Think about it.”

But the reorganization of all gang task forces into a single structure was already underway when FOX aired the original hit piece–not to mention the fact that the accusing officers blamed the entire LAPD command structure, for which Villaraigosa is responsible, not Janice Hahn.

When KTTV presented Blatchford’s report, it was introduced by anchorwoman Christine DeVine saying, “The Mayor’s Office is soon taking over control of all city anti-gang programs and plans to increase spending on gang prevention and intervention. Tonight Chris Blatchford with a FOX 11 News investigation of how some of that money has gone to the gangsters themselves.”  

As already noted, the accusation was false–but the timing was accurate: The consolidation of anti-gang programs was already underway when FOX aired its anti-Hahn hit piece.

There is a great deal more of local backstory to all this. The LAPD has a long, ugly history of racism, which it has only recently made giant strides to overcome.  As recently as  2007, there was a police riot on May Day, attacking thousands of innocent demonstrators, as well media covering the event, and people simply enjoying a day at the park.  (Random Lengths story here.)  The department has now fully embraced the pro-active multifaceted strategy of community-based policing, but there are still significant elements within the ranks who remain deeply opposed to working with the community, rather than lording it over them. This was a clear example of that.  

Add to that the fact that Hahn’s father, long-time County Supervisor Kenneth Hahn, was a legendary figure principally responsible for virtually the entire first generation of both Black and Latino elected officials in Los Angeles County, and you begin to get a feel for just how much even deeper racial ugliness this latest vicious act of racism is trying to hide.

CA Marriage Equality: My Pastor’s Fears Are Coming True

I’ve been despondent since Monday morning, friends and neighbors.

That’s when the new polls started coming out about California Proposition 8 – the anti-marriage equality proposition. Just as my pastor feared, the attack ads from the Mormon Church and other backers of Prop 8 have had an effect. Prop 8 is now leading in the polls by about 5 percentage points.

Tomorrow, I start phone banking against Proposition 8. Come with me over the jump for the points I plan to make.

Just in the four months since the court decision went into effect, about 11,000 same-sex couples have married in the state of California. That’s 22,000 people who have exercised their right to marry the person they love. I am one of those 22,000 people.

The new ads plant a bunch of unfounded fears in people who are on the fence. For the uninformed and the afraid, these are powerful fears. They MUST be refuted at all costs.

First, the ads claim that if Proposition 8 fails, people will be sued and/or open to criminal prosecution over their personal beliefs about homosexuality and same-sex marriage – namely, their religion. This is not true. California law already prohibits discrimination against people due to sex, race, religion, national origin or orientation. The passage of Prop 8 has nothing to do with it. Proposition 8 is about one thing, and one thing only: who has the right to get married and who does not.

The second thing these advertisements claim is that Proposition 8 will keep churches from losing their tax-exempt status, if their pastors or administrators refuse to marry gay people in their churches. This is nonsense. First of all, tax-exempt status is federal, not state. Secondly, the court decision In Re Marriage Cases, which decided that a ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional, specifically exempts churches from having to perform wedding ceremonies that are against their beliefs, and I quote:

“no religion will be required to change its religious policies or practices with regard to same-sex couples, and no religious officiant will be required to solemnize a marriage in contravention of his or her religious beliefs.”

Another objection the advertisements have is that the non-passage of Proposition 8 will force children in schools to be taught that same-sex marriage is normal (and, by extension, that homosexuality is, too). This is utter nonsense. The schools are already enjoined by state law that parents have the right to pull their children out of any class in which sex ed, health, or family issues are being taught. The defeat of Proposition 8 will not change that law.

Another smear that these ads are promoting is that it’s about controlling activist justices. That’s simply untrue. The justices have a job. Their job is to compare a law with the standards set by the state constitution; if it does not qualify, the law is overturned. The job of the justices is to protect our rights and freedoms by making sure that laws do not fall short of the constitutional standard.

This isn’t about judicial activism. It’s about people who hate gays. Let’s be clear about this. All these lies are just that – lies. And they’re excuses. They’re ways to give people who would otherwise vote to protect rights and freedoms an excuse to vote to eliminate them.

There’s one further thing that most people who would vote for this amendment haven’t thought about. It’s the unexpected consequence of passing Proposition 8. Here it is: It sets a precedent whereby the government of the state of California can prohibit certain religious practices. By enacting this law, the people of the state will have said that they should be able to regulate the free exercise of religion by religious groups who support marriage equality. And the big argument I keep hearing from the anti-gay crowd is that marriage is about procreation – biological procreation. So what’s next? A law saying that only marriages that have produced biological offspring are legal? A law saying that you have three years to produce at least one child in a biological manner, or your marriage is annulled? That would undermine adoption as a method of having children, as well as making marriage impossible for infertile people, elderly people, and those who have chosen not to have children.

If we allow one group’s religious beliefs to limit the choices of every group, if we enshrine that into law, well, members of most minority religions can kiss their rights good-bye. Do we want that?

Finally, and edited to add this: if this passes, it sets a precedent that the government can take away anyone’s civil rights at any time by legislating them away. Do we want that? I don’t think so.

Please donate to Equality California. EQCA is running the ad campaign, so donate to them. If you can’t do that, please phonebank here: http://noonprop8.com/page/?id=… .

Please help us turn those polls around and get enough ads on the air in enough places that we can defeat this amendment before it nullifies the rights of at least 22,000 gay people in this state, me included. My goal is for us to raise $15 million so we can out-spend the haters. Help me do it?

Thank you.

Crossposted to Daily Kos.