WM: ...So when you wonder why the L.A. Times hires reporters and editors who never seem to "get it," just remember: the newspaper is a business. Unfortunately, it's a business that puts its own profits ahead of the lives of the people of L.A. The publishers are not going to entrust their English-language subsidiary to managers who might cut sales at their Spanish-language subsidiary. Instead, the publishers hire reporters and editors willing to adhere to the "party line," namely, "there are no illegal people."
JN: This is absurd, and I think you know it....
WM: Your "coverage" of this issue is absurd....You're not running a newspaper; you're running a propaganda machine.
JN: ...I don't even know who runs Hoy or how it's doing -- any more than I do about Newsday or the Baltimore Sun. Criticize all you want. But this argument is just nuts.
WM: ...Why do you think the Tribune hired and keeps you instead of someone able to acknowledge that importing gang members from abroad might not be the greatest idea in the world?...
Follow-up questions might include: who forwarded this to Kaye? It looks like Moore must have. Why would Newton get so testy when we've seen so many lines of inquiry regarding the Times and conflicts of interest in the past? Why would Walter Moore be so testy as to pick up the line of inquiry himself, picking an argument with the proverbial place that buys ink by the barrell?
One thing the Times has continuously forgotten to mention is the fact that without Walter Moore there would be no discussion of Special Order 40 at this time. Also, while most media outlets were referring to Moore's proposal as "Jamiel's Law", the Times has largely sidestepped the term, apparently because it personifies the issue too much.