Summary: The Desert Sun does it again. It opinion page this morning, Palm Springs’ Gannett newspaper editorialized at great length against the city’s decision to retain the services of former Riverside County DA Rod Pacheco to assist it in addressing so-called City Hall scandal with this Gannett publication was so instrumental in fabricating. In a tone of entitled anger, this Gannett publication throws an epic snit, complaining that its amour propre was offended because the City didn’t trust it with sensitive information it wasn’t entitled to at any rate. The Desert Sun’s arrogance in believing it has the right to police the City’s choice of counsel is breathtaking, and constitutes a misuse of the First Amendment guarantee of free speech.
This Gannett publication’s editorial this morning, attacking the City of Palm Springs’ decision to retain the services of former Riverside County District Attorney Rod Pacheco to assist it in addressing the so-called City Hall scandal which this Gannett publication was instrumental in fabricating, takes the Desert Sun out of the realms of being simply a Republican-leaning newspaper and send it squarely over the edge into the realms of fascism.
Because it is a fundamentally fascist tactic to seek to interfere with the relationship between counsel and the Council’s client, whether an individual or an entity. This Gannett publication cannot articulate a convincing reason for its lengthy editorial excoriating the city for having retained Rod Pacheco, and by implication, for having retained counsel at all.
Instead, this Gannett publication takes the position, in print, that Pacheco should not have been retained because the Desert Sun’s institutional feelings were hurt because it was supposedly lied to. Of course, this Gannett publication is not a federal or state investigator that possesses the right to demand responses under oath, nor can it bring charges against an entity or individual for making an “false or misleading statement.”
Moreover, this Gannett publications attempt to ride the coattails of the gay community is, quite frankly, risible, as is the theatrical indignation of certain members of the gay community who have rallied to the support of this Gannett publication because of Mr. Pacheco’s peripheral role in the Palm Springs Police Department’s breathtakingly ill-advised effort to conduct sex stings in the Warm Sands neighborhood approximately 6 years ago. One does not blame counsel for the misdoings of the Constable.
This Gannett publication’s institutional arrogance in regard to this matter is breathtaking to behold. Indeed, the entire editorial appears to be nothing more than this Gannett publication’s epic snit that the City of Palm Springs apparently didn’t consider this Gannett publication trustworthy, and certainly didn’t buy into this Gannett publication’s amazing sense of entitlement. Distilled to its essence, the editorial could be summed up as “how dare the City of Palm Springs not spill its guts to us on our demand?”
Indeed, it was that sense of entitlement, that sense that this Gannett publication, and presumably this Gannett publication alone, has the right to play kingmaker in the politics of Palm Springs that has led this publication to a series of enormities over the years that, had they been covering Donald Trump, would have gotten them sued many times over.
This Gannett publication swung its institutional weight behind then-Congresswoman Mary Bono in the 2010 congressional election. In a candidate debate, moderated by then Desert Sun editor Rick Green, Green acted as an unembarrassed and shameless cheerleader for Mary Bono. Bono’s opponent in that race was then-Palm Springs Mayor Steve Pougnet, whom the Desert Sun has been eager to frame as the corrupt “darling” of the local Democratic Party.
In short, this Gannett publication’s entire framing and narrative of the so-called City Hall scandal has been based upon 1) a presumption of guilt, 2)this Gannett publication’s entitled view of itself as lawmaker, judge, jury, and presumptive executioner, and 3) an ill-concealed desire to “punish” Mr. Pougnet for having had the effrontery to be Mary Bono’s Democratic challenger in the 2010 congressional election.
This Gannett publication has a long memory, and a well-established, well-recognized faculty of nursing grudges. So, when it appeared that Mr. Pougnet had made some potential ethical missteps, the knives were well and truly out over on North Gene Autry Trail.
What takes this Gannett publication’s editorial this morning of the realms of fascism is that it flies in the face of that guarantee of the right to counsel, and to counsel of one’s choice, that is the core of our system of ordered liberties. The choice of counsel is not this Gannett publication’s choice to make. Its attempt to arrogate to itself the right to decide whom the city will retain as counsel, and its attempt to police that choice in its editorial pages is a misuse of the First Amendment. Indeed, it may be an actionable tort.
For if the City allows itself to be buffaloed by this Gannett publication into un-retaining Mr. Pacheco, he, and the city, should file an immediate lawsuit against the Desert Sun for interference with prospective advantage, interference with existing contract, and any other theory of recovery that Mr. Pacheco and his colleagues consider appropriate under the circumstances. This Gannett publication should not be allowed to interfere, under color of the First Amendment, with the Sixth Amendment rights of the city and its employees.
It’s high time this Gannett publication was forcibly disabused of its entitled view of itself as political kingmaker in this Valley.
