• News Ticker alerts

On Dec. 27, both the Washington Post and New York Times had big takeouts on the wealth of members of the House of Representatives and Senate. The Washington Post put a long story on page 1. In it, the Post said that North County Rep. Darrell Issa was the wealthiest person in Congress with net worth of $448.1 million, even topping Sen. John Kerry, who married very well. The Union-Tribune ran an abbreviated story from the Post, having the byline of the Post's author. But one key fact was left out: there was no mention of Issa and his estimated wealth.

Pictured: Darrell Issa

  • News Ticker alerts

Comments

dwbat Dec. 27, 2011 @ 10:35 p.m.

Not so surprising, with the new Manchester regime in place.

0

Don Bauder Dec. 28, 2011 @ 7:38 a.m.

Some people ask if this is a result of the Manchester regime, and his earlier instructions for reporters to lead cheers for local businesses and institutions. Incidentally, for brevity's sake, I left out the NY Times's references to Issa's wealth in its story. The Times also said Issa was the richest in Congress. It had a chart with him at the top. Here is important verbiage from the Times story: "With millionaire status now the norm, the rarefied air in the Capitol these days is $100 million. That lofty level appears to have been surpassed by at least 10 members, led by Representative Darrell Issa, a California Republican and former auto alarm who is worth somewhere between $195 million and $700 million. (Because federal law requires lawmakers to disclose their assets only in broad dollar ranges, more precise estimates are impossible.)" Then the Times, as it has done earlier, notes that Issa has faced "outside scrutiny because of the overlap of his Congressional work and outside interests, including extensive investments with Merrill Lynch and Goldman Sachs, as well as land holdings in his San Diego district. In one case, he obtained some $800,000 in federal earmarks for a road-widening project running along his commercial property."

The bottom line is that, with Issa listed as Congress's richest by both the Post and the Times, the U-T ignored Issa in the edited Post version that it ran. It does not smell right to me. Best, Don Bauder

0

SurfPuppy619 Dec. 27, 2011 @ 10:43 p.m.

I think Feinstein may be the wealthiest in the Senate-because of hubby Blum, I have heard he has a net worth of $500 million....

0

Don Bauder Dec. 28, 2011 @ 7:49 a.m.

Sen. Feinstein is listed as 14th richest in Congress, with $69 million. The Post mentions her husband's investments in real estate and in a biotech venture. Other senators such as John Kerry are listed as richer than she is. Best, Don Bauder

0

SurfPuppy619 Dec. 28, 2011 @ 2:18 p.m.

Thanks Don, I had obviously heard a number much hihehr than $69 million.....which seems very low considerign the majro investments Blum has, CB Richard Ellis alone should be worth more than $69 milion.

0

Visduh Dec. 28, 2011 @ 9:15 a.m.

This omission tells us all more than we ever wanted to know about the reporting-by-omission of the U-T. They turned a story of local importance into a feature story of little local impact by leaving Issa out of it. The so-called "liberals" such as Feinstein and Pelosi of California are rich people, part of that 1% so decried by the occupiers. They are richer by far than many of those that the pols seek to soak with high marginal income tax rates, and one can only wonder if they know they can escape paying them by various tax dodges and shelters. Or maybe they are just so rich that it no longer matters.

Getting elected to the Senate or House is no longer something for ordinary citizens to consider. As that story pointed out, nearly all of the incumbents have considerable wealth, regardless of where they are on the political spectrum. And in a few cases, when a person of modest means does get elected, he/she soon is showing 7- to 8-figure wealth. THAT is the real scandal, and so far little is reported on how it happens.

0

Don Bauder Dec. 28, 2011 @ 11:12 a.m.

Exactly. People of little means get elected to Congress, and pretty soon they are rich, even though their salaries are not all that high. What goes on? You know, I know, and readers of this blog know. Best, Don Bauder

0

HellcatCopley Dec. 28, 2011 @ 10:24 a.m.

This makes Helen and David look like Katharine Graham and William Randolph Hearst. Are any reporters brave enough to toss their pom-poms and walk from the cheerleading section?

It will be interesting to watch Manchester's moves in UT support departments ... will accounting, HR, etc be subsumed into his enterprise?

0

Don Bauder Dec. 28, 2011 @ 11:21 a.m.

Current U-T staff members, along with editor Jeff Light, claim that reporters are not in the slightest swayed by the "cheerleading" remarks by Manchester and Lynch. That is nonsense -- particularly during a time when so many journalists are being laid off. But it would be nonsense even in good times. I was a reporter and bureau chief for nine years for Business Week when it was written and edited for the benefit of the advertisers, not the readers. Everybody on the staff knew it but only talked about it in hushed tones. People knew exactly what management wanted and those that insisted on honest reporting got a subtle kind of punishment. I wrote for Copley newspapers (Union and U-T) for 30 years and it was only slightly different. The papers were written and edited to massage the downtown establishment, particularly advertisers. No editor or Copley executive had to state what was obvious. Go along or walk on eggs. I am happy to say that in both the case of Business Week and the U-T, I defied the unspoken rules. In neither case was I fired, but I suffered plenty of heartburn. Best, Don Bauder

0

dwbat Dec. 28, 2011 @ 12:21 p.m.

In his Dec. 25 U-T "Publisher's Note," Doug Manchester said in part: "We will adhere to the highest standard of journalistic integrity and objectivity." After some negative comments were posted, ALL comments were later deleted. Instead there is this statement: "Comments on this story are closed." So much for Manchester's so-called "integrity." The Dougster is so FULL of you-know-what.

0

Don Bauder Dec. 28, 2011 @ 12:56 p.m.

Yes, and the U-T closed up comments after Manchester's Christmas message, too Columnist Jim Romenesko wrote about it, and editor Jeff Light told him, "We turned off comments on that piece because I didn't like the way it was going...there was a debate heating up about competing religious dogma...I thought all of that was way off base." Best, Don Bauder

0

SurfPuppy619 Dec. 28, 2011 @ 2:20 p.m.

"We will adhere to the highest standard of journalistic integrity and objectivity." After some negative comments were posted, ALL comments were later deleted. Instead there is this statement: "Comments on this story are closed." == That is SOOO funny to me!

0

Don Bauder Dec. 28, 2011 @ 2:26 p.m.

Remember, Copley used to hand out the "Ring of Truth" awards. The masthead had some maudlin statement about truth in journalism, but I have forgotten what it was. What do you expect: "Let's cut this crap about objectivity. I bought this newspaper as a propaganda organ for downtown development, particularly my own projects." How would that look on the editorial page? Best, Don Bauder

0

HellcatCopley Dec. 28, 2011 @ 1:32 p.m.

Light also wrote Romenesko:

"I thought all of that was way off base. My reaction was, hey, it’s Christmas, let it go. Someone tried, in their own way, to say something nice, and now we’re headed for acrimony and debate."

Why would a newspaper shy away from acrimony and debate? Perhaps the acrimony and debate were louder than the cheerleading!

GIMME A U! GIMME A T! WHAT'S THAT SPELL? UT!

0

Don Bauder Dec. 28, 2011 @ 2:28 p.m.

That's what I wondered, too. Why should a newspaper shut off acrimony and debate? Doing so is a certain route to extinction. Generating acrimony and debate are what the media are for. Best, Don Bauder

0

SurfPuppy619 Dec. 28, 2011 @ 2:22 p.m.

Your link is not working, amd since I know it will be funny I need you to fix it .........

0

Don Bauder Dec. 28, 2011 @ 2:31 p.m.

That's my message, too. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Dec. 28, 2011 @ 2:30 p.m.

Somehow I can't pick this up. Can you resend? Best, Don Bauder

0

HellcatCopley Jan. 3, 2012 @ 1:08 p.m.

TO: ALL EMPLOYEES

FROM: JOHN T. LYNCH

RE: CHANGES FOR 2012

DATE: DECEMBER 30, 2011

When we met on December 9, 2011, we shared with all of you our vision for transforming the U-T into an Integrated Media company. At that time, we said that it doesn’t take much more effort to go from “good” to “great”, and that we were going to ask more from everyone in our quest to make us great!

I’m sure you have seen many physical changes to the building and improvements to your work place going on. Some plans for the future are to move Finance and HR to the 5th floor, to move all content producing groups together, move the cafeteria to a new U-T Bistro on the first floor, and many more to come.

As we begin this New Year and initiate the process of launching our company as the Integrated Media company of the future, there are some changes focused upon both the evolution to integration and securing more efficiency out of our current operation. Accordingly, listed below are some items that will affect changes to accomplish both.

Work Hours – *Employees will transition to a 40 hour work week effective January 2, 2012. Individual supervisors will have authority to allow for transition time to address child care and other issues. Standard office hours will be, 8:30 – 5:30, with an hour for lunch. Operational departments will modify work schedules based on business needs. No changes to weekly pay will accompany this adjustment of hours.

Appropriate Appearance – While we are upgrading the appearance of the workplace for everyone, we would like employees who work with the public to dress in sharp business attire. Again, individual supervisors will detail what is expected. Employees who do not work directly with the public, should keep in mind that we always have visitors, government officials/dignitaries in and out of our building, and the desire is to have a professional workplace appearance. “Casual Friday” will continue, but should be only slightly less business oriented than Monday through Thursday.

Lobby Hours – As of Tuesday, January 3rd, the lobby will be open from 7:00a.m. – 6:00p.m. Monday – Friday, with the receptionist ready to greet our employees as they start their day, and to ensure visitors are welcomed as they arrive. U-T employees are welcome to enter through either entrance. This change of hours will communicate to clients, readers, and visitors that we are alive, vibrant and “open for business.”

We extend to you and your Family a warm wish of great success, prosperity, and good health for the New Year. We invite your thoughts as to how we develop this new media company.

*excludes Pressroom and Packaging employees

0

Sign in to comment

Join our
newsletter list

Enter to win $25 at Broken Yolk Cafe

Each newsletter subscription
means another chance to win!

Close