LOU CANNON: MOSTLY RIGHT

I have a great deal of respect for journalist Lou Cannon, and his opinion pieces for the Los Angeles Times regarding Wendy McCaw's various evil-doings have been spot on. Having said that, I feel the need to respectfully disagree with a couple comments he made in his recent letter regarding the current NLRB hearings. Let's start off with this one ...

While I found most of Mr. Steepleton’s testimony unbelievable, I rise to his defense on a matter for which he has been criticized in various media and blogs. These critics question whether it was possible for Mr. Steepleton to have been unaware of his wife’s union activiites at the paper. I have known couples—often when one spouse was in politics and the other in the media or when the spouses belonged to different political groups—where job discussion was off limits. In fact, it would have been prudent for the Steepletons NOT to have discussed the union or anti-union activities of either one of them. I don’t know the Steepletons, and he strikes me as an editor who is truly out to lunch, but he deserves the benefit of the doubt on this point.

While I might normally agree with this assessment (I mean, James Carville and Mary Matlin must have this rule), I think the difference in this case is the assumption that Scott Steepleton actually has scruples. Mr. Steepleton has clearly shown that there is no line he will not cross in defense of the Santa Barbara News-Press. Based on his sleazy and dishonest actions over the last year as well as his previous court testimonies, why would anyone possibly believe that this is the road he dare not tread? And if that's not enough to convince you, consider this: Wendy McCaw's mission to root out union supporters has no bounds. Would she really allow Scott's wife to be promoted if there was any doubt as to where her "loyalties" lie? No, Scott Steepleton does not deserve the benefit of the doubt on this -- or any -- point.

Here's the second comment by Cannon that piqued my interest ...

When, green as grass, I covered my first trial 50 years ago, my city editor at the Merced Sun-Star warned me not to confuse the attorney with his client. It was good advice, which I appreciated many years later after coming to know Edward Bennett Williams. I don’t think that Barry Capello is quite in that exalted league, but his performance at this hearing has struck me as exceptionally thorough and professional in every respect.

Again, I generally agree with that sentiment here, but let's not kid ourselves ... It's not like Mr. Capello is some objective, outside lawyer with no previous knowledge of the situation. He's a Santa Barbara resident for god's sake! Certainly he has kept abreast of the situation and is aware of the facts leading up to this hearing. And yet, he's chosen to be a McCaw champion at the expense of his community. As Blogabarbara pointed out back in March, Capello made some interesting statements to The New York Times. Here's one of them:

“The meteor has hit. We’re watching the end of the industry,” he said. “Journalists think they can write what they want when they want. I don’t know if that can survive in this age.”

Gee, it's kind of hard not to confuse the attorney with his client when they both have the same talking points. Barry Capello either lives in the same clueless rich, white bubble that Wendy occupies, or he checked his morals at the door to defend this client. He may be thorough, but professional is pushing it a tad in this blogger's opinion.