Comment
Rate
Editorial
Contreras Story Needed to Be Told
Those who work in or who follow the media in Los Angeles have been abuzz for the past two weeks, debating the merits of the LA Weekly's Oct. 26 cover story "The Final Hours of Miguel Contreras." While a controversial subject matter, the debate is unwarranted - the Weekly did the right thing in running this important story.
Some have accused the publication of trading in tabloid fodder by reporting previously unpublished details about the union leader's fatal heart attack in May 2005. Others have complained bitterly that the story is deliberately anti-union. There has also been speculation about who from the LAPD leaked information to the Weekly of the prostitution sting at the location where Contreras had died and why it was leaked.
Initial news accounts said Contreras suffered a heart attack in his car in South Los Angeles. The Weekly article by David Zahniser, however, reported that an unidentified woman placed a 911 call from a South Los Angels "botanica" after Contreras, who she said had come in for a card reading, had stopped breathing. Paramedics arrived to find Contreras unconscious.
The controversy ignited by the article centers around three issues: that the botanica was the focus of an LAPD prostitution bust six months after Contreras was found there; that the Los Angeles County Coroner's office did not perform a required autopsy; and that some local political leaders who raced to the Daniel Freeman hospital where Contreras was taken (and where he was officially pronounced dead) may have influenced the autopsy decision.
We understand the questioning of whether the seamy private life of a prominent public figure should be reported, or if this is a situation where the media should demonstrate restraint, deferring to the sensitivities of the family.
But really, this case is pretty clear: The Weekly (which last week experienced an editorial shake-up) published a solid, thoroughly reported story that raises serious questions about the death of a public figure and the behavior, in the ensuing hours, of other local leaders. It doesn't answer every question or provide every detail, nor could it possibly do so. But it is time to stop blaming the messenger and instead use the information to understand a) if protocol or the law was breached, and b) the many sides of Contreras.
It is important to understand that this is not about disputing Contreras' myriad accomplishments. The late executive secretary-treasurer of the County Fed was a committed leader whose strides on behalf of labor in Los Angeles are widely lauded. Contreras was a former farm worker who rose through the ranks. He was first appointed to head the local chapter of the AFL-CIO by its then-leader Jim Wood as Wood lay dying of cancer. Wood made a good choice for the labor movement. Contreras was passionate and astutely political. He deserves the credit he receives for empowering labor in this city.
Some find revisiting the matter unpleasant, but the circumstances surrounding Contreras' death, and other current issues, make it an essential story, the type that reporters should follow if any public figure dies. Contreras, as head of an organization that represented more than 800,000 workers, was as prominent and influential, and perhaps more so, than CEOs of some Fortune 500 companies and many Los Angeles elected officials. If one of these business or elected leaders died in similar unusual circumstances - and no one can dispute that the death was unusual - we'd expect the media to be all over it. The story should not be put aside because of what Contreras accomplished. To begin with, in fairness to all and justice to the deceased, his death deserves no less scrutiny than any other human who died under similar circumstances. There's a reason for the rule that requires autopsies, and that does not go away because someone dies in embarrassing circumstances. There are things to be learned from autopsies, and none of them were learned about Contreras.
Specifically, the story deserves public attention because of the issues the Weekly raised regarding the activities of not just the County Coroner's office, but also former City Councilman Martin Ludlow (who would go on to succeed Contreras, and then resign after a fundraising scandal) and, likely, others. The article, citing anonymous sources, said Ludlow sought to ensure that there was no autopsy. Ludlow, quoted in an Oct. 27 story in the Los Angeles Times, would not comment on the autopsy.
Adding a timely element, the Weekly noted that County Supervisor Mike Antonovich last month sent a letter to the coroner's office asking why no autopsy was performed. State Sen. Gloria Romero, the Weekly reported, also continues to agitate forcefully for an autopsy.
Of course, some will continue to object, to maintain that nothing positive can come out of raising these issues after such an influential person has died. But it is apparent that the death of Miguel Contreras, for whom a new Downtown Los Angeles high school was recently named, was a death of significance. Officials and elements of local government have come into serious question. That makes it a news story that must be told.
When judging the quality of coverage of the story, it is also important to take a step back and consider the mainstream Los Angeles news media in general (a far different animal than the entertainment press and its chasing of celebrity "news"). Despite the public's purported widespread dissatisfaction with "media" in the broadest sense, the truth is that most local news outlets behave responsibly most of the time. The reporters and editors usually understand and agree when to pursue stories about the private lives of public figures, and when those matters should remain private. The last decade has seen several instances in which many local journalists knew tales about public officials and their private lives that, if they were blared across newspaper covers or teased before the 6 p.m. news, would no doubt draw readers or viewers.
Those stories never reached the pages or the airwaves, and that's a good thing, because they really were about private matters that did not involve other public figures or public institutions. In fact, it's hard to imagine reporters in New York City or London showing the restraint and respect for personal matters that the media here have demonstrated on several occasions.
However, the death of Miguel Contreras is not one of those cases. He was a leader of hundreds of thousands, and the circumstances in which he died, and the questions and behavior of others in the wake of his unfortunate passing, demand investigation. The L.A. Weekly did the right thing.
page 4, 11/6/2006
© Los Angeles Downtown News. Reprinting items retrieved from the archives are for personal use only. They may not be reproduced or retransmitted without permission of the Los Angeles Downtown News. If you would like to re-distribute anything from the Los Angeles Downtown News Archives, please call our permissions department at (213) 481-1448.
Some have accused the publication of trading in tabloid fodder by reporting previously unpublished details about the union leader's fatal heart attack in May 2005. Others have complained bitterly that the story is deliberately anti-union. There has also been speculation about who from the LAPD leaked information to the Weekly of the prostitution sting at the location where Contreras had died and why it was leaked.
Initial news accounts said Contreras suffered a heart attack in his car in South Los Angeles. The Weekly article by David Zahniser, however, reported that an unidentified woman placed a 911 call from a South Los Angels "botanica" after Contreras, who she said had come in for a card reading, had stopped breathing. Paramedics arrived to find Contreras unconscious.
The controversy ignited by the article centers around three issues: that the botanica was the focus of an LAPD prostitution bust six months after Contreras was found there; that the Los Angeles County Coroner's office did not perform a required autopsy; and that some local political leaders who raced to the Daniel Freeman hospital where Contreras was taken (and where he was officially pronounced dead) may have influenced the autopsy decision.
We understand the questioning of whether the seamy private life of a prominent public figure should be reported, or if this is a situation where the media should demonstrate restraint, deferring to the sensitivities of the family.
But really, this case is pretty clear: The Weekly (which last week experienced an editorial shake-up) published a solid, thoroughly reported story that raises serious questions about the death of a public figure and the behavior, in the ensuing hours, of other local leaders. It doesn't answer every question or provide every detail, nor could it possibly do so. But it is time to stop blaming the messenger and instead use the information to understand a) if protocol or the law was breached, and b) the many sides of Contreras.
It is important to understand that this is not about disputing Contreras' myriad accomplishments. The late executive secretary-treasurer of the County Fed was a committed leader whose strides on behalf of labor in Los Angeles are widely lauded. Contreras was a former farm worker who rose through the ranks. He was first appointed to head the local chapter of the AFL-CIO by its then-leader Jim Wood as Wood lay dying of cancer. Wood made a good choice for the labor movement. Contreras was passionate and astutely political. He deserves the credit he receives for empowering labor in this city.
Some find revisiting the matter unpleasant, but the circumstances surrounding Contreras' death, and other current issues, make it an essential story, the type that reporters should follow if any public figure dies. Contreras, as head of an organization that represented more than 800,000 workers, was as prominent and influential, and perhaps more so, than CEOs of some Fortune 500 companies and many Los Angeles elected officials. If one of these business or elected leaders died in similar unusual circumstances - and no one can dispute that the death was unusual - we'd expect the media to be all over it. The story should not be put aside because of what Contreras accomplished. To begin with, in fairness to all and justice to the deceased, his death deserves no less scrutiny than any other human who died under similar circumstances. There's a reason for the rule that requires autopsies, and that does not go away because someone dies in embarrassing circumstances. There are things to be learned from autopsies, and none of them were learned about Contreras.
Specifically, the story deserves public attention because of the issues the Weekly raised regarding the activities of not just the County Coroner's office, but also former City Councilman Martin Ludlow (who would go on to succeed Contreras, and then resign after a fundraising scandal) and, likely, others. The article, citing anonymous sources, said Ludlow sought to ensure that there was no autopsy. Ludlow, quoted in an Oct. 27 story in the Los Angeles Times, would not comment on the autopsy.
Adding a timely element, the Weekly noted that County Supervisor Mike Antonovich last month sent a letter to the coroner's office asking why no autopsy was performed. State Sen. Gloria Romero, the Weekly reported, also continues to agitate forcefully for an autopsy.
Of course, some will continue to object, to maintain that nothing positive can come out of raising these issues after such an influential person has died. But it is apparent that the death of Miguel Contreras, for whom a new Downtown Los Angeles high school was recently named, was a death of significance. Officials and elements of local government have come into serious question. That makes it a news story that must be told.
When judging the quality of coverage of the story, it is also important to take a step back and consider the mainstream Los Angeles news media in general (a far different animal than the entertainment press and its chasing of celebrity "news"). Despite the public's purported widespread dissatisfaction with "media" in the broadest sense, the truth is that most local news outlets behave responsibly most of the time. The reporters and editors usually understand and agree when to pursue stories about the private lives of public figures, and when those matters should remain private. The last decade has seen several instances in which many local journalists knew tales about public officials and their private lives that, if they were blared across newspaper covers or teased before the 6 p.m. news, would no doubt draw readers or viewers.
Those stories never reached the pages or the airwaves, and that's a good thing, because they really were about private matters that did not involve other public figures or public institutions. In fact, it's hard to imagine reporters in New York City or London showing the restraint and respect for personal matters that the media here have demonstrated on several occasions.
However, the death of Miguel Contreras is not one of those cases. He was a leader of hundreds of thousands, and the circumstances in which he died, and the questions and behavior of others in the wake of his unfortunate passing, demand investigation. The L.A. Weekly did the right thing.
page 4, 11/6/2006
© Los Angeles Downtown News. Reprinting items retrieved from the archives are for personal use only. They may not be reproduced or retransmitted without permission of the Los Angeles Downtown News. If you would like to re-distribute anything from the Los Angeles Downtown News Archives, please call our permissions department at (213) 481-1448.
 |
||
| An Idea That's Off Base |
Article Rating
Reader Comments
The following are comments from the readers. In no way do they represent the view of ladowntownnews.com.
You must register with a valid email to post comments. Only your Member ID will be posted with the comments.
Registered users sign in here: |
Become a Registered User |
Popular Searches
