argument, just put out the statement because it was true. we all knew it was true. so it was pretty straightforward at that point. so you made clear that you were going ahead with the story with or without his confirmation. without getting into the confidential sources, did somebody or some persons come to the los angeles times ? did somebody want this story out? you know, i can t speculate on why people do or say what they do or say. i mean, i think the fact that people were forthcoming in a way that they weren t when we started looking into some of these allegations as has been pointed out some years ago during the groping thing, i m sure that s going to come up. people were forthcoming. i can t ascribe motives to them. we received information. we developed it to a point where we were comfortable. and there were two stories. the l.a. times broke the story do you think your ability to break the story was related to the fact that the housekeeper, show told you, had voluntari
issued the confirming statement to your paper? you know, it never came to that point. i mean, you know, they realized, again, they knew that we had information that was true. it was true so it never came to that point. last question. in 2003 a week before the recall election, the l.a. times famously reported those stories about the 15 or so women who said that arnold schwarzenegger had either groped them or behaved in a sexually inappropriate way. with the benefit of hindsight, do you think the paper should have stayed on that and possibly found out about the out-of-wedlock child? i want to say a couple things. the amazing thing about that story still to this day is true. the governor didn t deny it. he admitted it. people got angry at us. if you want to renew now, we ll have it on your door tuesday or so. so call on up. should we have followed up? we did follow up. and here s the basic thing about reporting. you know, the best reporter in america, whether it s bob woodward or
just too squeamish about this stuff. i would have thought we were way past that, quite honestly. i don t see how this is not a major story for the wash waing post and every major news outlet. the question might be when do they go overboard? you legitimately raised that question is when we re sort of gorging on that. this allows us to look back on the last 15 years of political and cultural history at a very fame us couple. and you frame that the way you look at them differently. you frame the way maria shriver reacted to allegations. you look at that differently. you look at the l.a. times breaking the story and many others writing about it and this deal arnold made with the media and national enquirer to squash other stories about this thing. let me jump in and ask you about maria shriver asking her family s privacy be respected. are the media capable of doing that in this crazy environment?
and saying well, it s out. we have no choice. but you do have a choice. you do have a choice, but in a competitive environment and in an internet world, there really isn t much point to not reporting it if the new york times is, for example. you know that. and to some degree we had this conversation during the monica lewinsky scandal, how much to say, how much to show. you know, there was a lot of detate then, and that was before the internet. in the age of the internet, you re two clicks you re one click away from finding it out anyway, actually. in some ways it becomes a moot point, i think. the washington post, amy, did not put this story on the front page. it was reported in your column. yes. that is not your decision, but i would say it s a colossal misjudgment. this is one of the most famous people on the planet. everybody was talking about this story. why wasn t it treated as what it was, a news story? there were a number of people in the building who, like me, a
we reached out to these people, we were ready to go to press. all we were looking at that point was some reaction and some comment. and so the fact that the key person involved was saying to you no, this was not his baby, you felt you had enough evidence from your other sources that you were absolutely confident the story was true? absolutely unequivocally. we knew it to be as sure as i m sitting here talking to you, we knew it to be true. and if the former governor had not issued a statement to the los angeles times acknowledging paternity, would you still have published the story? you know, i m going to sound like a politician here, that s a hypothetical. we knew it to be true. we would have dealt with that if it had happened. we also reached out simultaneously to ms. shriver. you know, again, a hypothetical. it didn t come to that pass. you know, when we called the governor and his folks again, we said, we re not looking for any sort of confirmation. we re giving you a s