Reporter Asks What Door Critic Looked Behind

For years, David Horowitz has presented himself as a journalist in pursuit of the truth. But now, he’s getting his facts wrong.

I’m referring to a commentary by Horowitz, the former TV consumer reporter, criticizing KCBS-TV Channel 2’s recent investigation, “Behind the Kitchen Door,” which exposed dirty conditions at local restaurants. Horowitz claimed the reports were “irresponsible and sensationalistic” (“Exposing Sensationalism of Eatery Expose,” Counterpunch, Dec. 1). After reading his comments, I wondered if Horowitz saw the reports he criticized.

Horowitz says Channel 2 “painted L.A.’s restaurants with the same broad stroke.” I disagree. Our reports did focus on restaurants that repeatedly violate the health code. We found that 30% of L.A. eateries consistently get poor to failing grades. That’s a big threat to the public health.

But we also repeatedly reminded viewers that 70% of restaurants get average, good or excellent scores. In fact, as part of our series, we did three stories focusing solely on clean restaurants that follow the law.

Horowitz also stated that “the series didn’t focus enough on where some of the blame belongs . . . the understaffed inspection system.” Once again, I disagree.

The second night of our series was devoted entirely to exposing the flaws in L.A. County’s inspection program; that report took up almost a third of our half-hour newscast. On following nights, we continued to expose the system.

*

We reported that the county health department had millions of extra dollars in its restaurant inspection program that it could have used to hire more inspectors. We also revealed how the department had been warned, eight years earlier, by a county grand jury to clean up its inspection system.

Horowitz also said, “The series stayed clear of big national restaurant franchises,” supposedly to avoid offending potential advertisers. That’s not true. Our series talked about at least five nationally known chain restaurants in L.A. with bad sanitation problems.

Horowitz’s commentary also charged, “The series did not show restaurant-goers how to protect themselves.” In my reports, I repeatedly gave viewers tips on how to tell if a restaurant is following the health code. Our series included three separate stories telling viewers how to spot a dirty restaurant. On Channel 2’s Web site, Channel 2000, we are giving viewers still more helpful advice.

Horowitz’s commentary made me wonder: Is he still angry with Channel 2 because his job was eliminated two years ago?

Last week, I tried talking with Horowitz about the series, and we got nowhere.

I believe Horowitz’s commentary was misleading both about the completeness of our reporting and about the series itself.