Blogs and Stories
Mate the Press
Married L.A. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa’s relationship with a TV anchor and former Miss USA should be a scandal. Instead, argues Joe Mathews, it offers a rare opportunity to engage a lethargic city in civic issues.
It is a tragedy when a perfectly good political sex scandal goes to waste. It’s especially tragic in Los Angeles, which famously lacks the kind of public narratives that dominate news cycles and force citizens to pay attention to their elected leaders.
Los Angeles’ latest missed opportunity arrived last week with the glorious news that Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, whose marriage broke up a few years back after an affair with a political reporter for a Spanish-language TV station, had been caught dating yet another TV newswoman, Lu Parker.
Is privacy for public figures good for a place as apathetic as L.A.? Perhaps it is time for reporters and politicians to rise above principle, for the greater good.
The story’s beginnings were promising. Villaraigosa is separated from his wife, but his divorce is not final, thus giving the new relationship a jolt of naughty electricity. Parker is a former Miss USA who has modeled and kept a personal Internet page that included a bikini shot.
Best of all, the relationship between Villaraigosa and Parker was discovered after the two were photographed together at Chevalier’s Books, an independent bookseller in an L.A. neighborhood called Larchmont, a village of walkers within the car-crazy metropolis. It is possible that no affair has been exposed in a more politically correct venue. Small-business owners, environmentalists, and neighborhood activists would have to take notice. As an Angeleno, the early reports filled me with civic pride—this was proof that, for all the nasty stereotypes about our lack of intellectual depth, we are a profoundly literary city.
I waited eagerly for followup reports, in hopes that all of Los Angeles would devour every salacious morsel of news—and perhaps pay more attention to city government in the process.
Within hours, the moralizing Los Angeles local media had bungled this heaven-sent opportunity. Instead of digging up racy details of the liaison, the media turned the story into a snoozefest over professional ethics. Had Lu Parker, beauty queen reader of news for KTLA, compromised her journalistic objectivity? Had the mayor once again gotten too close to those covering him? Yawn. The print media focused on the boring angle of how this might affect Villaraigosa’s chances in the California governor’s race in 2010—a contest that few outside Sacramento care about and that the mayor has not yet officially joined.
Worst of all, executives at Parker’s own station, the independent KTLA (full disclosure: KTLA is owned by the same bankrupt Chicago company that owns my former employer, the L.A. Times), publicly declared the relationship “a personal matter” and a “nonstory.” They declined to cover this.
Why is that such a problem?
There’s a serious answer. Southern California faces a deep crisis of civic engagement. So few people pay attention to public matters locally that it’s impossible for elected leaders to govern the place.
Election turnout demonstrates the problem. Fewer than 20 percent of Los Angeles voters bothered to show up for a crucial statewide special election last month. Recent city elections have drawn even lower turnout than that; fewer than 7 percent of registered voters cast ballots in May 2007. This year, Villaraigosa was re-elected in an election that saw just 15 percent of registered voters turn out. In a city of 4 million people, the mayor managed to win a four-year term with less than 153,000 votes.
What could change that? Studies have shown that competitive elections with well-known personalities drive voter turnout and public interest. But Los Angeles has few such personalities. The city’s print media, once the way such personalities were discovered, is dying. Local TV news outlets largely ignore politics and government. Sex and celebrity dominate their broadcasts.
So when a political story offers a little of both, it’s journalistic malpractice not to pursue it obsessively.
The Villaraigosa-Parker relationship should have become the dominant local news story. Every possible question should have been asked. Does Parker spend the night at the mayoral mansion (Taxpayers want to know)? Have the couple spent any time together in the mayor’s office? What are Parker’s own political views? Does she have pet issues? Is she offering him any advice behind the scenes? Coverage of the relationship could have provided cover for reporting on real news. How is the mayor’s new love affecting his ability to pursue his agenda? (This would give the media a chance to explain what his policy agenda is, something most voters don’t know.) What do members of the city council, the police chief, or the union leaders involved in the budget fight think of the relationship?
Villaraigosa and Parker seem perfectly content that the story hasn’t had legs. The newscaster isn’t talking. Villaraigosa told reporters who asked, “I’ve got a right to a personal life. I have a right to privacy.”
That’s a principled position; as a longtime political reporter, I’m sympathetic. I felt dirty when news required me to write about politicians’ private lives, and tried to avoid such duty whenever possible. But is privacy for public figures good for a place as apathetic as L.A.? Perhaps it is time for reporters and politicians to rise above principle, for the greater good.
While I’m not suggesting betrayal or deceit, the mayor, newly single, might do his part by openly dating a steady stream of beautiful and glamorous women. Heck, he might consider dating more than one TV anchor at a time. Such behavior would be in the public interest if it forced media outlets—and all Angelenos—to pay a little more attention to their government.
Joe Mathews is a journalist, an Irvine senior fellow at the New America Foundation, and a contributing writer at the Los Angeles Times. He previously served as Justice Department reporter for The Wall Street Journal and as a city desk reporter at the Baltimore Sun. He is the author of The People’s Machine: Arnold Schwarzenegger and the Rise of Blockbuster Democracy.







"The story's beginnings were promising. Villaraigosa is separated from his wife, but his divorce is not final, thus giving the new relationship a jolt of naughty electricity."
Huh? It's some sort of scandal that a man who is in the process of divorcing his wife -- has been separated from her for two years -- is dating?
The media have moved on to better things -- like evaluating the crappy job Villarigosa has done as mayor. LA Magazine's cover last month had a picture of Villarigosa on the cover with the word "Failure" pasted across his image along with an article discussing his undistinguished performance.
There's a lot to say about Villarigosa, but Matthews has entirely missed the point with a cheap shot. That's Tina Brown journalism at its worst.
What a stupid attempt to gin up a non-story. Separated people date all the time. We stick to the issues in LA
Why is it that the media - this journalist included - wants to tell us (the public) which stories we should be reading or which stories are most relevant to us? Silly man...Slow news day, huh?
Shouldn't the mayor and this reporter have some personal ethics that would guide them to think that their relationship would send the wrong message? She was known to report or "read" local political stories and and when her employer was asked about the potential conflict of interest their relationship would create, their statement went something like,'now that we know about the relationship, she will no longer be covering local politics.' Didn't this women learn anything from her collegue at Telemundo?
I don't really care what Villaragosa does in his private life, as long as it does not effect his job performance. As a taxpayer I have a right to that. My impression of him is that he is using the mayor's office to establish himself as a potential candidate for governor. I can not think of one thing that he has done to improve the city of Los Angeles; action often requires that you alienate some part of the populace to get things done. Safer to lay low until it is time to run for governor. I for one hope we could come up with a better alternative.
This comment has been removed by The Daily Beast's editors.
With all due respect Mr. Mathews (and Daily Beast staff) but this is one of the lamest "featured stories" you've had in a while. Talk about a bunch of blather with no point.
As a California resident, let me assure you that there are plenty of people who pay attention to what is going on in our state. Our most recent "special election" was a complete waste of time/money/resources, on an issue that is so tired (our annual budget 'crisis'). Voters saw through this attempt to manipulate us at the ballot and stayed home. I for one did vote, but I totally understood why so many didn't. We've had more special elections in the past few years than I can remember, always because of some "crisis".
Now Mr. Mathews attempts to manufacture a crisis out of the Mr. Villaragosa's private sexual life. HELLO MEDIA - AMERICANS ARE SICK AND TIRED OF YOU GINNING UP THESE NON-STORIES ABOUT POLITICIAN'S PERSONAL LIVES. Whether or not Mr. Villaragosa is having an affair has virtually nothing to do with his performance as mayor of our nation's second largest city. I am proud of the local media for not amplifying this nonsense that no one cares (outside blowhards like Mr. Mathews) about. Why does it matter to me who our elected leaders are screwing?!? As long as they aren't benefiting from said sexual liaisons, or providing public resources to their sex partners, I truly don't care. Maybe California is leading the nation in focusing on what really matters - job performance. By all accounts (and I'm not an LA resident) it appears that Mr. Villaragosa is pleasing the majority of LA residents with his job performance.
Get off your high horse Mr. Mathews and write about issues that MATTER. And Daily Beast - quit promoting this drivel as 'news'.
As a reporter, the author should know to avoid dangling modifiers such as "as an Angeleno" on the first page of the article.
This is one of those sad stories about this country... Los Angeles one of the largest cities in the nation, a city loaded with super talented people is stuck with a man who can not be beaten in an election because he is a Mexican, plain & simple.. I am not talking about being Mexican as anything bad, what I am saying is that no non Mexican could run & win against a Mexican & no Mexican has the money or power to run against him.... Bottom line is Villaragosa is in a position to do whatever he wants whenever he wants to do it...
He is here in LA instead of Washington because this is the 2nd beauty queen he has had affairs with while still being married & that is in the last year... Prior to this coming out he was involved with several other woman while being married & so on & so forth...
I personally have no problem with anyone who loves being with woman, it is not my job to judge the morals of others but I do have the right to say this man has done NOTHING for the city, NOTHING for education in the city & NOTHING for transportation in the city.... LosAngeles spends tens of millions on bilingual education that has been proven not to work... He has spent tens of millions on bus's that do nothing all day (empty) other then bring maids to & from work once a day.... Bottom line he has done nothing for the city that the city needs doing....
I guess I feel about him as I do about Diane Feinstein, I wish she would run for governor since the governor of California has virtually no power to do anything, meaning she can't screw it up & I would love to get a real Progressive in her spot in the do nothing Senate. I wish Villaragosa would run for something that he could not screw up & give hiom the time to play his sex games. (What better place then the US Senate) Sooooo I would love ot see him run for Dianes seat, her run for Arnolds seat & both win.....
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.
Please log in to leave comments.