Stay updated with breaking news from The la times. Get real-time updates on events, politics, business, and more. Visit us for reliable news and exclusive interviews.
writers and you guys probably known it because you've seen it with your own books. this isn't really complicated. you just -- you have book scan counts about 80% of the sales, all the chains count the sales, there are people who count indy sales. it shouldn't be complicated but apparently it is for the times. >> i've always heard from my publishers, pete, your book better be so far ahead they can't deny it otherwise they'll try to find a way. that is the sentiment? >> what happened, i put out a book, walk the blue line recently and it's about you law officers. it's not political. i don't think it should be. it tells the truth about law officers. it comes you out, the first week it's not on the times list. we have the numbers. it should be number two after governor -- the florida governor, i'm doing what he did with trump. >right.>> de santis, yes. >> it should be two or three.
means it's a really good childrens book. that should have been on the list six weeks. it just recently is going to get on. the times list comes out on sunday, tonight. that list is a week behind the list that the wall street journal, the la times and all of -- that's crazy too. why would they be a week late? it's like be putting out sports scores a week late. it doesn't make sense. rachel: the new york times gave a response. they say the best seller list us based on detailed analysis of book sales from a wide range of retailers, brick and mortar stores of all sizes and online vendors to represent what's selling across the united states. what's interesting is, you're putting on paper what so many people kind of already knew and understood. i'm really glad you did. i think we're in a moment where we need to tell the truth about everything. >> absolutely. rachel: just let everything fall where it goes.
FOX and Friends Sunday vimarsana.com - get the latest breaking news, showbiz & celebrity photos, sport news & rumours, viral videos and top stories from vimarsana.com Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday newspapers.
it outsold the bottom seven on the list five to one. it's not on the list. i write a letter. they refuse to publish it whichs is interesting. it's trying to point out the list is inaccurate a lot of times. >> what's the implication of the inaccuracy. you're a new york times best seller, you get what? if you are denied that honor, you're denied what? >> well, you're denied more sales. you're denied publicity. the list gets published in a lot of places. and i think, you know, in a very minor way the times is supposed to have journalistic rigor on if they can't do this it reflects on their reputation in a minor way. >> is it explained by left wing bias? is that what it is? >> i don't know. there's a little of that. except i put out a book -- i didn't write it but i published it called free water and it won the newberry this year which
the photos of the victims to, quote, try to impress a woman at a bar. bragging about how he had been at the crash site. and the photos being shared with firefighters at a gala event at the universal city hilton hotel. the county contends legitimate reasons for first responders to take and receive the photos, including to help determine the size of the crash site and decide what resources were needed. it claims that all images were deleted upon orders of superior officers. they no longer exist in any form and were never intended to enter the public domain or appear on the internet. but as "the la times" reports, an expert witness who testified last week for bryant and chester said the behavior of the deputies and jordan were examples of macabre long standing practice in law enforcement of taking and sharing gruesome photos especially when celebrities are involved. pretty horrible stuff, right? but why do people want to see such images? joining me now is kolton skriber in, ph.d. from the university of
making time to be with us tonight. thank you. >> thanks for having me, rachel. >> so, if she were to call the reporter's committees free legal hotline to ask for advice here, what advice would you give her in this circumstance? >> well, i think i would say first off there's long-standing legal authority, including a supreme court landmark decision that makes clear that journalists and news organizations can't be held criminally liable for publishing material about a matter of public concern. it doesn't matter whether the video at issue that you played earlier, rachel, is confidential. it doesn't matter if it was leaked to the los angeles times. the constitution doesn't permit a criminal prosecution for receiving and publishing it. the sheriff's department should know that and it shouldn't be threatening a criminal investigation as retaliation for that constitutionally protected activity. >> threatening and retaliation are the key words there.
my understanding from the sort of political reputation of the sheriff here who is as i mentioned running for re-election is that he may like this sort of lawless image this creates about him and the sort of screw the first amendment -- screw the press kind of image that this creates of him, creates for him. but i wonder if he is getting some unexpected blow back. i hope and expect the l.a. times is pushing back with all its got here. is the sheriff maybe biting off more than he can chew in terms of what part of the u.s. constitution he's messing with by doing this. >> rachel, i like to think that this sort of conduct would receive widespread condemnation, not just from members of the press which we have seen but really from members of the public. the reporter targeted with this threat reported on an alleged coverup of a video tape incident which a deputy kneeled on the head of a handcuffed inmate for approximately three minutes. the public needs that kind of
said to the video he watched the video with, quote, we do not need bad media at this time. so, "the la times" publishes the disturbing video. the sheriff says i had no idea. we didn't cover that up. as soon as i found out about it, i took action. a commander on his own force says, that is not true. you absolutely knew about it. and you did cover it up. that's where the story stood as of yesterday. where it went today is absolutely bananas. because today l.a. county sheriff convened a press conference to dispute all this reporting. and what he did at this press conference, that is now causing a fresh round of headlines, is he got up at this press conference today in person and he put up a big poster for everyone to see. poster had three large photos on it. one on the right is "the la times" journalist who did this reporting. also, another photo is one of his political rivals for the elected position of l.a. county sheriff and the third photo was
the l.a. sheriff department inspector general, who investigates things like this. the reason you put up the photo of those three the sheriff announced all three are subjects of a criminal investigation into how "the la times" reporter got that security footage. they're all the subjects of a criminal investigation now by his office. he says they're all being investigated now for possible felonies, like conspiracy and burglary and unauthorized use of a data base. he put up this list of potential crimes. all while "the la times" reporter was in the front row covering the press conference for this paper. while the sheriff puts up her picture as a possible perpetrator who his office is going after. this decision by the sheriff today to announce a criminal investigation into this reporter, certainly look like retaliation. the executive editor of the l.a. times put out this statement tonight citing the sheriff's attempt to criminalize news
some distant authoritarian county, the los angeles county sheriff convened a press conference to announce he was opening a criminal investigation into an l.a. times reporter who has been reporting recently on a scandal in his office. he put up a big picture of her in the press conference as he sat there in the front row covering the press conference. the l.a. county sheriff's department's announcement it launched a criminal investigation into a journalist because of her reporting is appalling. this blatantly retaliatory conduct aimed at "the la times" and its reporter is beyond the pale and violates the first amendment. publishing newsworthy information about an alleged law enforcement cover up that sought to block an investigation, into the use of excessive force is constitutionally protected activity. joining us now is katie townsend, legal director at the reporter's committee for the freedom of the press. miss townsend, i appreciate you