and by “this” I mean claiming we won National Championships. Maybe we can weather the storm of criticism for a few days and then everyone will start buying it! Oh…wait…we actually win a lot of those, so we don’t need to. I just hope the NCAA and the government (interesting to hear they are involved) keep up their investigations and then, maybe, in a few months we may have something come from another paper that should be riding the coattails of the paper with the most access to this story.

Well, I did something that I didn’t think I would ever do. I wrote to the fishwrap. I sent basically the same e-mail to Simers and Plashke. Then I noticed a Streeter article, and used his language in my e-mail to him. Here’s what I said:

“Your May 10 article about scrambled priorities began thusly: “Am I out of touch? Am I too angry, too outraged about Manny Ramirez and his dope-induced exile to baseball purgatory?” I happen to agree with you on this – the priorities of baseball fans are indeed scrambled.
 
Exactly the same thing can be said about what I perceive to be a much bigger story and a much bigger scandal in Los Angeles sports – the allegation that Tim Floyd paid Rodney Guillory $1,000 for delivering OJ Mayo to the Trojans.
 
Ten days ago, Yahoo Sports broke the story, which I thought was pretty big: A direct, specific allegation that Tim Floyd was seen giving at least $1,000 to Rodney Guillory as a payoff for directing OJ Mayo to the Trojans. Floyd has said nothing in the interim. Garrett has said nothing in the interim. USC’s lawyer said what lawyers always say – “We can’t comment” meaning she didn’t want to comment.
 
In the past ten days, the Times has done essentially nothing. There was a story on the story – with a question mark in the headline. Then there was a Q and A between Adam Rose (USC alum) and Craig Penrose (USC Alum). What a shock – Penrose saw absolutely nothing wrong. There is a nice children’s story called “The Emperor’s New Clothes” which was a lot like that interview. We also heard it a lot from Sgt. Schultz on Hogan’s Heroes.
 
Where has the rest of the Sports Department been? What have you done, personally? Have you asked for an interview with either Floyd or Garrett? If you have and they have refused an interivew, why haven’t you written that? That’s news: “Garrett and Floyd Refuse Offers To Tell Their Side of the Story.” And if you haven’t asked for an interview, that’s a story in and of itself: “The Times Decides To Bury Any Reference To The Latest Scandal at USC.” If the Times decides that the allegations shouldn’t be believed, there is a story there: “There is No Credence to the Unsupported Accusations.” Of course, if that’s the conclusion, then there has to be a factual basis for it, and that would be what Los Angeles sports fans (even transplanted ones) want to see.
 
I took a quick peek at the internet. There are 100 pages of hits (that’s 100 pages of hits, not 100 hits) when I searched for “Tim Floyd USC Payment.” Of those 100 pages, there were exactly two references to the Los Angeles Times. Is the Times as an institution simply not interested? Are you, as a sports journalist, just not interested? If that’s so, report that – it’s news. Totally ignoring everything is news, but obviously it will never be reported.
 
Why the silence? To paraphrase a writer who I’m sure you will agree is pretty good, “Am I out of touch? Am I too angry, too outraged about Tim Floyd and his illegal payoff exile to basketballl purgatory?” Why is there apparently no interest at all on the part of anyone at the Times? Frankly, the silence sounds a lot like an attempt to bury a story which might be embarrassing to a valued client."

My e-mail to Plashke was basically the same as that to Streeter, but without the personal embellishments. Here’s his reply.

From: “Plaschke, Bill” <Bill.Plaschke@latimes.com>
Sent: Saturday, May 23, 2009 1:08 AM
Subject: RE: USC Basketball

“the charges were made by a felon who is trying to sell a book…he is the
only source…I’m not personally involved in it, but I’m guessing that we
need more than one biased source to publicly crucify a man..if it were your
reputation on the firing line, you would feel the same way..” [sic.]

I didn’t think that answer was particularly responsive, so I sent him the following response:

“So the answers to the questions are as follows:

Generally, the source is a felon trying to write a book. Does that mean
that a felon trying to write a book is incapable of being truthful about
anything? Were none of the facts mentioned by Mr. Johnson, the felon and
potential author, worthy of checking? Did you not think it was worth the
effort to call Guillory and ask him? He is trustworthy enough to have
marketed OJ Mayo to Coach Floyd in the first place (according to Coach
Floyd’s own words), but was he not trustworthy enough to call on this issue?
Of course, a call to Coach Floyd would have been easy, and would have been a
scoop since he has yet to utter a word about the accusation.

You guess that you “need more than one biased source to publicly crucify a
man.” Is it the policy of the Times to wait for witnesses to voluntarily
provide information? The Times never seeks out sources to verify things?
The Times reporting staff is just that – you report. There is no
investigative journalism anywhere at the Times? Shame on you, if that is
so. And shame on you if it is not so, and you are not reporting anything to
further some unstated agenda.

Specifically, I asked a series of questions. You answered one, stating you
were not involved, and refused to answer the balance..

Where has the rest of the Sports Department been? Answer: You refuse to
answer. Follow up question: Why won’t you answer.

What have you done, personally? You’re not involved. Follow up question:
Why not? Isn’t it a big enough potential story?

Have you asked for an interview with either Floyd or Garrett? Answer: You
refuse to answer. Follow up question: Has anyone at the Times asked for
such an interview, and if not, why not.

Why hasn’t the Times written any of the suggested headlines? Answer: You
refuse to answer. Follow up question: Don’t you think that your readers
care that the story is just out there festering?

Is the Times as an institution simply not interested? Answer: You refuse to
answer. Follow up question: Why not? Why is there no interest?

Are you, as a sports journalist, just not interested? Answer: You refuse to
answer. Follow up question: Why do you personally have no interest?

Why the silence? Answer: You refuse to answer. Follow up question. Why
won’t you or the Times take a position? Your refusal to take a position –
even to acknowledge the story (or non-story) – is itself news., in my
opinion."

Why do I think that Plashke will not respond to the follow-up question?

The Trojan Times “coverage” of the shenanigans at U$C* should be compared and contrasted to the coverage of the 1980’s Kentucky basketball payoffs that resulted in the near “death penalty” imposted by the NCAA against that program. The Lexington Herald Leader and reporters Jeffrey Marx and Michael York were awarded the Pulitzer Prize for their investigative reporting of those payoffs, which literally put the lives of the reporters in peril from the crazed Wildcat faithful.

Between the free house for Bush, the luxury apartment for Jarrett and the cash to Mayo there must at least be enough to launch an investigative piece. If the investigation doesn’t turn up anything, than go ahead and report it. But just to remain silent is shameful. That we have to rely on ESPN and Yahoo Sports for investigative journalism in our hometown shows how tremendously weak or biased the local fishwrap has become.

Plashke wrote in response to my e-mail above, in which I chastised him for not responding to my questions. Here’s his response. (He’s good at this. Note the subtle manner in which he manages to attack my motives (“sorry you’re so bitter”) for asking him why he’s not doing his job.) Here’s what he said:

“From: “Plaschke, Bill” <Bill.Plaschke@latimes.com>
Sent: Saturday, May 23, 2009 7:26 PM
Subject: RE: USC Basketball

So you think we’re NOT pursuing the story?..You think we HAVEN’T been
calling people?…You assume that because we don’t write a story, we’re not
checking out all leads?..We chase things hard, and it’s a sign of the
potential weakness in this story that, for all our chasing, we have yet to
find someone to corroborate.
…
Where have I been on this? I’m the Times’ lead general sports columnist,
meaning I cover the biggest story. If you read our newspaper or website, you
would know that the Lakers are my town’s biggest story. If I’m not covering
them through the playoffs, then THAT’S a story.
…
I’m sorry you are so bitter about this, and cannot afford me the same
respect that I have afforded you, but, hey, I understand, that’s how the
world works these days

plaschke."

Here is what I sent to him in response. I am trying to goad him a little, in the hope that he’ll say something to the effect that this jerk in Tampa can’t tell me I’m not doing my job. I’ll get Floyd in here and grill him just to show I’m not just$c sycophant." Anyway, my response follows:

“You’re asking me some questions, so I will do what you wouldn’t do.

First question: So you think we’re NOT pursuing the story? Yes. That’s
exactly what I think. The reason I think that is because the Times has yet
to devote one molecule of ink to what some people perceive to be at least as
big a story as the Ramirez suspension. The fact that you are pursuing the
story is newsworthy: “Times Investigative Reporters Unable To Develope Any
Evidence To Corroborate Accusations Against Floyd.” That’s a story. But
that’s not what I think. I think the Times is doing zero. There seems to
be no column space available to publish anything about any aspect of the
Mayo saga. You couldn’t verify the phony foundation, or the plasma TV, or
anything else? Frankly, I don’t believe it. The evidence I’ve seen on
Yahoo (not in the Times) is overwhelming. Yet the Times is silent.

Second question: You think we HAVEN’T been calling people? Yes. That’s
exactly what I think. Any response from anyone you called is newsworthy.
“Floyd Refuses Interview With Times Reporters” is newsworthy. “Garrett
Cites No Comment On An Ongoing Investigation In Refusing Interview.” That’s
newsworthy. “No One In The Lewis Johnson Camp Is Willing To Be
Interviewed.” That would be newsworthy, but that is obviously never going
to be a Times headline, because from everything I’ve seen, Johnson or his
attorney is willing to talk to anyone any time. Have you interviewed
Johnson? If he’s such a sitting duck for impeachment, why don’t you get
your best interviewer to sit down with him and skewer him with questions he
can’t possibly answer? I think the reason for that is clear — no one at
the Times has made any effort to interview him. In my opinion, THAT’S
newsworthy.

Third Question: Where have I been on this? OK, that may have been
rhetorical. Nonetheless, I absolutely cannot accept the fact that since May
12, when Yahoo Sports broke the story, that the Lakers or Manny Ramirez or
whatever is the story du jour has occupied all the time of all the Times
reporters. If I open my Times tomorrow, I suspect I’ll see a story or two
on things other than the Lakers or the Dodgers or the Angels. Is every
reporter at the Times occupied day and night on things other than what may
well be the biggest scandal in college basketball since the point shaving
scandal at Kentucky a few years ago? You have a Trojan alum running your
Bruin and Trojan blogs. Doesn’t he have five minutes to line up an
interview with someone? Oh, I forgot. He found Sergeant Schultz, who
saaawww nothingggg.

Bottom line: I answered all your questions forthrightly. You answered none
of mine or the follow-up questions. The Times is obviously ignoring the
whole Floyd scandal. The only news you carry about it is in the outraged
letters to the Editor — oh, wait. I forgot. None have been published.
The intellectual dishonesty of the Times in general and of its senior
reporters in particular is appalling. And newsworthy. And will never be
printed.

I welcome your response, which I assume will be more of the same. I would
much prefer action rather than excuses for inaction, but I know that will
never happen."

Here’s what Simers says: “happen to be a little busy with lakers..all in due time.” What the heck does that mean? He’ll answer my e-mail in good time? He’ll publish a scathing expose that rips the facade of self-righteousness from the festering canker on Figueroa? Or he’ll join the rest of the ostriches and Mr. Magoo look-alikes in saying that the whole thing never happened?

This is really a remarkable state of affairs. And the MSM wonders why it’s a declining industry.

Send an e-mail to Plashke. The rest of the BN, too. If the guy’s mailbox is constantly full with e-mails chiding him for doing nothing, maybe he’ll get the notion that not everyone in town thinks the earth revolves around Inheritance Hall.

It has now been more than two weeks since Yahoo broke its story. That sound you hear is all the shovels from the fishwrap digging and digging. They are amassing tons of facts, and cross-checking, alphabetizing and categorizing each and every one. The Pulitizer Prize committee is going to be absolutely stupefied when they see the scientific precision with which the fishwrap reporters analyze every facet of this convoluted story. The public will be appalled and amazed at the surgeon-like skill with which the investigative journalists peel away each of the lies surrounding [insert either Johnson’s or Floyd’s] story, leaving at long last only the stunning and not very pretty truth.

Or not. I personally hear no shovels shoveling. I see business as usual as Mr. Magoo and Sgt. Schultz help Inspector Clouseau keep those famous See No Evil, Hear No Evil, Publish No Evil monkeys in perfect alignment.

That’s a newsworthy story but it will never be published.