Loading ...Church-owned paper knew about scandal, didn’t print i
flockwoodWow.
A Utah politician from a prominent Mormon family who was running for Congress paid a woman $150,000 in 2002. Why? Well, it concerns this earlier incident in a hot tub with a girl who was 15. The politician was 28 at the time. Or 30 — depending on whether you believe the church-owned Deseret News or the Salt Lake Tribune.
Nudity was involved.
So far, the story sounds like a thousand other (non-Mormon) sordid tales involving sleazy politicians.
But then things get really, really unusual — from a journalism standpoint. According to the church-owned Deseret News’, own story:
“The Deseret News learned of the allegations against Garn just before the GOP primary election in 2002. Garn sat down and spoke about the incident with Deseret News reporters and editors.
At the time, Garn and now-U.S. Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, were in a tight primary race seeking the Republican nomination for the 1st Congressional District and Garn was the Utah House majority leader, a position he has, again, achieved.
Deseret News editors decided not to run a story about the indiscretion at that time, since the GOP primary was only weeks away and the incident had occurred years before.
The editors decided to wait to see if Garn advanced in the primary before deciding to publish a story or not.
Because Garn lost that primary, and so was also retiring from the Utah House, the newspaper never published a story.”
Let’s review the facts. The church-owned paper finds out about a huge scandal involving a prominent Mormon politician. Editors decide to kill it — to wait and see how the Republican primary goes before deciding whether to pursue it.
After all, the election was only weeks away. I’ve worked in a lot of newsrooms in a lot of states and I’ve covered a lot of campaigns and I’ve never seen a story killed because the election was only weeks away.
There are plenty of newsrooms that wouldn’t run this story on election day — if the facts were in dispute. Or the day before the Election. Or perhaps even the weekend before the Election.
There’s a sense that running a story like this at the very last second is risky — for journalists, for readers for good government — especially if the facts are in dispute.
But I’m aware of no credible secular daily newspaper in America that would sit on this story for weeks if the candidate had admitted that the allegations were true.
The paper’s explanation raises other red flags. The editors decided to wait until after the Republican primary to decide whether to run the story.In most of Utah, of course, the primary election is the general election.
1992 was a big year for Democrats, nationally. But in Utah, Rob Bishop won the general election after beating Garn 61 percent to 37 percent (it was a three-way race.)
Had Garn won the primary, the Deseret News’ editors would have face another uncomfortable dilemma: Do we reveal the truth now and throw the election to the Democrats or do we continue to conceal the truth from our readers and hope no one finds out.
For a moment, I was going to give the Deseret News credit for at least admitting it had held the story in 2002. But before giving them credit, I need to know their motivation for finally coming forward. Did they decide they owed it to their readers to tell them the truth? Or were they doing preemptive damage control, figuring that the reporters who had been silenced in 2002 would step forward and tell the story themselves?
Another strange twist: Salt Lake is a two-newspaper town. Normally competition in two-paper towns is fierce. Why did this story make it to the Deseret News, but not the Tribune?
Among the follow-up questions I’d want answered. Was alcohol involved? Were laws broken?
March 12th, 2010 at 3:09 pm
Since he paid her 150k, does that make him involved in child prostitute or was it just hush money?
March 12th, 2010 at 4:34 pm
This sounds very fishy any way you slice it. I suspect they knew all along what they were doing and were just playing politics with it.
I can give an example of that happening on your old paper in Lexington, Frank, though I don’t think at a time when you were there. Back in the late ’90s or early ’00s, an incumbent circuit judge was faced with a challenger. Prior to the election, the newspaper knew that a number of the circuit judges in Lexington were receiving small amounts of money monthly from the urban county government. This was a practice left over from the time when the courts were paid for by each county separately. Some of the judges (rightly) felt that the practice was a conflict of interest, because the city/county government had frequent lawsuits before these judges.
The newspaper knew this information prior to the election, but didn’t publish it until they were scooped by their cross state rival the Courier-Journal, which was AFTER the election. The incumbent won by a few votes. I’ve always wondered how the election would have come out had the Herald-Leader printed what it knew before the election. BTW, the practice of paying the judges these small amounts was ended within days of its disclosure in the newspaper.
I still don’t know why they sat on the story; I don’t think they supported one candidate over the other. Maybe they just didn’t want to be accused of swinging an election.
March 17th, 2010 at 3:48 am
It was hush money, and the women in question isn’t talking.
April 5th, 2010 at 12:25 pm
I don’t think the Deseret News being owned by the Mormon Church had anything to do with this. It was a poor decision, granted, but virtually every candidate in Utah is Mormon, both GOP and Dems. The state is more than 70 percent Mormon, after all. I don’t think the Church wanted “their guy” in the office. No matter who won the primary he would be “their guy.” If anything they would NOT want someone with such low morals in office or representing the Church.
I suspect Garn sweet-talked his way through getting the editors not to publish it. Just a few weeks ago he resigned from the State House of Representatives over it, so it caught up to him eventually.
Don’t know why the Salt Lake Tribune didn’t cover it. They usually jump on anything that involves a Mormon acting badly.
April 5th, 2010 at 12:52 pm
The issue, John, is whether the paper improperly failed to report on the story. It looks to me like they did. I don’t know why, and neither do you. While it would be unfair of me to suggest that the fact that the LDS Church owns the newspaper had something to do with their failure to report, it is equally unfair of you to suggest that it didn’t, because neither of us has any inside information. Naturally you are predisposed to think well of your church, but that predisposition doesn’t carry with it any more information than any of the rest of us have.
April 6th, 2010 at 10:45 am
Very true, Caleb. I just wanted to throw it out there that I couldn’t see a connection. I don’t argue that is was probably a poor decision on the newspaper’s part, but I fail to see how the Mormon Church would care either way about who won the primary, and if anything they would want to discredit someone who plays around in hot-tubs with under-age girls. Of course, that’s just my opinion. The thing that concerns me is why didn’t the Salt Lake Tribune know about any of this? There is a lot that is still unknown about this situation. But yes, I am predisposed to think the Church is innocent until proven guilty.
I work at a newspaper and know that not everything that is printed or not printed goes over the desks of the owners. Even if there was a culture of “protecting their own” within the newspaper staff, I can’t see why the other Mormon winning the primary was any less or more important than this one loosing.
April 6th, 2010 at 11:07 am
FYI: The Deseret News is generally a pretty tame paper. They don’t even advertise rated R movies in their movie pages. I can see how they would be cautious about printing anything scandalous. Not justifying that position, but just saying it might be a factor.
April 6th, 2010 at 12:09 pm
I agree, John, that newspapers sometimes don’t want to cause scandal. A good example of that was the refusal of the Lexington newspapers (there were two then) to publish any stories about the civil rights movement in Lexington. Local newspapers all across the South just decided not to cover the movement, leaving it to papers like the Louisville Courier-Journal and the Atlanta papers to cover it.
It seems to me that anytime a newspaper gets too wrapped up in the local culture, be it religious or political, it’s a dangerous thing. I don’t know why the Salt Lake City paper didn’t publish the story, but I suspect there’s a reason, and that it will come out some day. I suspect it didn’t have anything to do with the election itself — as you say, why would the church support one Mormon candidate over another? It might well have had to do with not wanting to expose a prominent Mormon to bad publicity.
April 6th, 2010 at 2:03 pm
That may be true, but as Garn continued to be a member of the Utah House and moving up in its ranks, the newspaper must have known this would all come out eventually. Really kind of stupid on their part, the way I see it. I can see withholding it until everything was verified (if that was the case), but they should have pursued it like a dog on a bone. That’s what we pay them for, right? Oh wait, I guess it’s the Mormon Church that’s paying them. Hmmm… none of this is good. I’m looking to see who squeals first and we get the whole story—or at least another version of it. It’s gotta be interesting when it involves blondes, politics, religion and hot-tubs.
April 6th, 2010 at 2:18 pm
Well, I don’t know who pays them. One supposes that the newspaper is supposed to be a profit making enterprise, which would mean that they presumably want to please their readers. However, if the function is primarily to be a PR organ of the church (which I doubt), then the church probably is bearing the cost. I don’t know which it is; perhaps a little of both.
April 6th, 2010 at 3:13 pm
I really don’t know where you’re going with the sarcasm and such, John, but it comes across like you’re trying to ridicule and dismiss the whole matter without really addressing much of anything.
Like Caleb, I see no clear indication that the DN pulled its punches because of improper influence from the LDS powers. At at the same time there is no clear indication otherwise, and there was a valid motive for the church to suppress the story. Regardless of whether the news would favor the Dems or GOP politically, it is certain that such a scandal would embarrass the LDS organization.
An objective reporter will present the facts as they are, trusting the truth. The reporter will also be careful not to speculate about motive or otherwise make explanations or excuses on behalf of one of the parties. The facts are pretty clear that the DN spiked a story about an improper relationship between a married politician and a minor and what appears to be extortion or hush money. That is far more than mere gossip, and is something that the citizens have a right to know. Yet the paper withheld the story after meeting with Garn. The paper says that it continued to squash the story because Garn lost the primary and left office. Interestingly, it does NOT say what action they would have taken had Garn won the primary or been elected in the general election. That is troubling.
April 6th, 2010 at 4:23 pm
The Deseret News, at least for the last 40 years or so, has never been a great money-maker for the Church. In fact, I think it may have even operated at a loss at times and maybe right now. It is also the vehicle the Mormon Church uses to distribute the LDS Church News and the Mormon Times sections to residents in Utah. (Those outside Utah can get the LDS Church News in the mail, but you gotta be a subscriber to the Des News if you want it here.) So, I see the reasoning that it is kept as a PR organ of sorts. It certainly was in its early history 130 or so years ago.
Of course this would have been (and now is) embarrassing for the Church in a way, but I don’t see how the Church would really suffer by having it known one of its members acted like a moron. Anyone with more than one lobe to their brain would know we Mormons are no more immune to stupidity and poor judgement as anyone else. Except for those Episcopalians.
José, I see your points and I certainly don’t condone the Deseret News’ actions. I’m just trying to lighten things up until the other shoe falls on this. I better enjoy it while I can, ’cause this whole issue could get real ugly in the next few weeks.
April 7th, 2010 at 4:07 pm
Last night I began re-reading Thurber’s great informal biography of longtime New Yorker editor Harold Ross, and was surprised to find that, early in the last century, Ross began his journalistic career at the Salt Lake City Tribune. Thurber recounted that his first assignment was to report on a “house of ill repute,” called on the madam, stammered around and, embarrassed to death, finally blurted out, “And how many fallen women do you have here?” Perhaps that early experience is why Ross kept the New Yorker so squeaky clean all those years.
April 8th, 2010 at 12:16 pm
I was unaware of that. Gives the Tribune some status. The Salt Lake Tribune used to always pride itself with being the “anti-Mormon” or the “independent” voice in Utah for many years until about six or seven years ago when it was bought out by MediaNews Group out of Denver. That was a sad day for all the liberals in Utah. The paper even came out for Bush in 2004. Considering Kerry as the alternative, not many here blamed them.
Of course there NEVER was nor is a “house of ill repute” here in Utah! Just ask the Deseret News! All we Mormons are the exemplars of the highest morals. Except when it comes to under-age girls—marrying them off at 14, partying in hot-tubs, nothing serious of course.
(Man, that girl is stupid! If somebody paid me $150,000 to shut up, I’d take the secret to the grave! And I’d do a good job of it, too. You know how good we Mormons are at keeping secrets!)
April 8th, 2010 at 2:14 pm
“That was a sad day for all the liberals in Utah.”
Both of them . . .
And it’s not so much that we object to Mormons marrying girls off at 14; heck, I’m from the mountains. It’s that we object to your marrying them off at 14 in groups!
April 8th, 2010 at 2:46 pm
LOL !!!!