Follow-up To Mamet's Post: John Carroll-Former LA Times Editor

John Carroll's father Wallace was a wonderful journalist. Below is a portion of a NY Times piece about Wallace Carroll's death:

Wallace Carroll, Publisher And Editor, Is Dead at 95 By DAVID E. ROSENBAUM (NYT) 647 words Published: July 30, 2002

Wallace Carroll, a retired newspaper editor and publisher who campaigned against the Vietnam War and led his paper to a Pulitzer Prize for environmental reporting, died on Sunday in a nursing home in Winston-Salem, N.C. He was 95.
Mr. Carroll had first joined The Winston-Salem Journal and Sentinel in 1949 as executive editor but left in 1955 to serve eight years as news editor of the Washington bureau of The New York Times. He returned to Winston-Salem as editor and publisher from 1963 to 1973.

Under his direction, the paper favored gun control and busing to integrate public schools, positions unpopular with many North Carolinians. Articles about environmental protection -- particularly a series on strip mining -- earned the paper the 1971 Pulitzer Prize for public service.

On March 17, 1968, he published a signed editorial in Winston-Salem under the headline ''Vietnam -- Quo Vadis?'' that argued that United States policy in Southeast Asia was misguided and irrelevant to the goal of thwarting Soviet expansion.

Dean Acheson, the former secretary of state and an adviser to President Lyndon B. Johnson, showed the editorial to Johnson and stood by while the president read it. Later that month, Johnson announced that he would not run for re-election and would begin peace negotiations with North Vietnam. In an article about events leading to Johnson's announcement, The Washington Post reported that Mr. Carroll's editorial had influenced his thinking.

Two years later, Mr. Carroll wrote in another article: ''What we are losing is something more serious than the loss of any war or territory. It is the soul of America that is being lost in Vietnam. It is time for us to save the soul of America.''

Wallace Carroll was born in Milwaukee on Dec. 15, 1906, and graduated from Marquette University. He began his journalism career as a reporter with The United Press in Chicago, and the news agency sent him to Europe to cover the Nazi advances.

After the United States entered the war, Mr. Carroll became director of the United States Office of War Information in London.

He was friendly there with James Reston, then a war correspondent in London for The Times. Mr. Reston wrote in his memoirs, ''Deadline,'' that Mr. Carroll emphasized ''with his usual common sense'' the importance of explaining United States policy to Americans and people in the allied countries but was often rebuffed by his superiors.

After the war, he wrote a book about his work, ''Persuade or Perish,'' and became executive editor in Winston-Salem.

Mr. Carroll maintained his friendship with Mr. Reston, and in 1955, Mr. Reston, as Washington bureau chief of The Times, hired Mr. Carroll to be his deputy with the title of news editor. Mr. Carroll was in charge of day-to-day coverage.

In his history of The New York Times, ''The Kingdom and the Power,'' Gay Talese wrote that James Reston offered to make Mr. Carroll bureau chief if he would stay at The Times. But Mr. Carroll declined the offer and in 1963, he returned to Winston-Salem to be editor and publisher.

Mr. Carroll's wife, Margaret, died last year. He is survived by a son, John S. Carroll, the editor of The Los Angeles Times, as well as by three daughters, Margaret Carroll of Washington, Rosamond Carroll of Kenfield, Calif., and Patricia Carroll of Arlington, Va.; four grandchildren and two great grandchildren.

After he retired in 1973, Mr. Carroll lectured for several years at Wake Forest University.

Although Mr. Carroll spent most of his career as a news executive, Reston wrote that he had ''a studied respect for the English language'' and ''could have edited Lincoln's Gettysburg Address and improved it.''

My father adored Wallace Carroll and read all of his books. He was a great journalist and peace advocate. He was also born in the same year as my father. When I found out that his son John was the editor of the LA Times, I Googled him. This is what I found that disturbed me:

'Memo on abortion and liberal bias by Los Angeles Times Editor John Carroll, May 22, 2003

To: SectionEds
Subject: Credibility/abortion

I'm concerned about the perception---and the occasional reality---that the Times is a liberal, "politically correct" newspaper. Generally speaking, this is an inaccurate view, but occasionally we prove our critics right. We did so today with the front-page story on the bill in Texas that would require abortion doctors to counsel patients that they may be risking breast cancer.

The apparent bias of the writer and/or the desk reveals itself in the third paragraph, which characterizes such bills in Texas and elsewhere as requiring "so-called counseling of patients." I don't think people on the anti-abortion side would consider it "so-called," a phrase that is loaded with derision.

The story makes a strong case that the link between abortion and breast cancer is widely discounted among researchers, but I wondered as I read it whether somewhere there might exist some credible scientist who believes in it.

Such a person makes no appearance in the story's lengthy passage about the scientific issue. We do quote one of the sponsors of the bill, noting that he "has a professional background in property management." Seldom will you read a cheaper shot than this. Why, if this is germane, wouldn't we point to legislators on the other side who are similarly bereft of scientific credentials?

It is not until the last three paragraphs of the story that we finally surface a professor of biology and endocrinology who believes the abortion/cancer connection is valid. But do we quote him as to why he believes this? No. We quote his political views.

Apparently the scientific argument for the anti-abortion side is so absurd that we don't need to waste our readers' time with it.

The reason I'm sending this note to all section editors is that I want everyone to understand how serious I am about purging all political bias from our coverage. We may happen to live in a political atmosphere that is suffused with liberal values (and is unreflective of the nation as a whole), but we are not going to push a liberal agenda in the news pages of the Times.

I'm no expert on abortion, but I know enough to believe that it presents a profound philosophical, religious and scientific question, and I respect people on both sides of the debate. A newspaper that is intelligent and fair-minded will do the same.

Let me know if you'd like to discuss this.

John"

I have bolded what I think was a sellout statement by John and I sent him the following email and got his response:

-----Original Message-----
From: SDrobny Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2005 7:32 PM
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Your Father

Here is a chapter from your father's book. I have copied this for you. How long are you going to be a sellout to the fascists that your father fought against as long as he lived. Shame on you for working for the Tribune Company and everything your father stood against. You stand on his shoulders and you desecrate his name.

Sheldon Drobny
Co-founder
Air America Radio
Chairman
Paradigm Group II, LLC



Dear Mr. Drobny,
I'm sorry you think my father wouldn't approve of my working for Tribune Company. I'm also sorry you went to so much trouble researching his writings from the 1940s to make your point. Fortunately, my father lived a very long life -- long enough to see me take the job in Tribune Company and to express his deep pride.
In my job as a newspaper editor, I receive quite a bit of mail from crackpots. So far in 2005, you're leading the pack. Keep up the good work!
John Carroll

Within a few months he was fired by the Tribune Company. That is the price he paid for selling out to the Tribune Company. Perhaps other editors will understand that rushing to the center may not sell newspapers.