After writing last week about Connie Bruck’s negative one-sided profile of Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa in the New Yorker, I learned an interesting fact: Bruck is married to an ex-Congressman who was a strong supporter of Villaraigosa’s chief opponent in the 2005 Mayor’s race. This raises the question: should the New Yorker have assigned Villaraigosa’s profile to a writer whose husband has an axe to grind against him? At the very least, the relationship of Bruck’s husband to Villaraigosa should have been disclosed.

Prior to my writing about Connie Bruck’s “hatchet job” on Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, I heard rumors that former California Assembly Speaker Bob Hertzberg had arranged the hit piece. Hertzberg was Villaraigosa’s chief rival in the race to face James Hahn in 2005, and it is fair to say that had Hertzberg beat Villaraigosa and made the runoff, he would be the Mayor of Los Angeles today.

But I wasn't aware that Bruck is married to former Congressman Mel Levine, who previously represented Santa Monica and the Westside of Los Angeles. Here’s what Levine had to say about Hertzberg when the latter announced his 2005 mayoral candidacy:

"Bob Hertzberg will be a formidable candidate, and he has the capability of generating support from many different constituencies in the city," said former Rep. Mel Levine, commenting as a private individual and not as chair of the Jewish Community Relations Committee. "He has boundless energy and has a base [in] the San Fernando Valley, which is a key swing constituency in the city election."

For readers who did not read the New Yorker article, its main theme was that Villaraigosa is disloyal to those who have helped him in the past. Or as one person quoted by Bruck puts it, he leaves former allies behind “in the dust.”

Among those who clearly feel they fit this description is Hertzberg. His endorsement of Villaraigosa in the runoff against Hahn helped lead his former rival to victory, and he apparently now feels ignored by the man he helped elect (there is no way of knowing if Hertzberg’s endorsement of Hahn would have changed the outcome of the race, but it would not be crazy for Hertzberg to believe it would have).

In all of the feedback I got from my original criticism of Bruck’s piece (and most requested confidentiality), none agreed with her assessment of Villaraigosa. One would think someone would have written to defend the story, but nobody did.

This contributes to my sense that Bruck got the story of Villaraigosa very, very wrong. And that it is certainly possible that her husband’s relationship with Hertzberg, as well as his own possible treatment by the Los Angeles Mayor, played a role in Bruck’s story.

If the New Yorker were not among the most trusted publications in the United States, Bruck’s potential conflict of interest and inaccurate story would mean little. But this is the type of story that Villaraigosa’s opponents in future races will use in mailers and television commercials.

This makes it imperative that the New Yorker at least reveal to its readers Bruck’s personal connection to the subject matter of the article. Ideally, the magazine should provide a full account of Levine’s relationship to Hertzberg and Villaraigosa so that readers can make their own judgment regarding Bruck’s bias.

Send feedback to rshaw@beyondchron.org