Of Mice and Men [Updated]
The L.A. Times is nothing if not magnanimous. Here I am on a lonely blog criticizing the Times management for making some pretty terrible decisions in its shake-up of its editorial pages. And what does the Times do in response? Sue me? Banish me from making my own free-lance contributions? Put snakes in my mailbox? Hardly!
No, instead the fine folks over at the parent Tribune Company devote an entire editorial page today to very kindly proving me – and a legion of critical readers—to be absolutely right!
This is the first Tuesday in years in which former L.A. Times national correspondent Bob Scheer doesn’t have an opinion column. He doesn’t, you'll remember, because the clairvoyants at the Times decided that the tens of thousands who read his column and appreciate his liberal view don’t really like reading it anymore. So, in today’s edition we find the first daily column by the guy who has been contracted to replace him – a struggling, whiny and not—so-funny aspiring TV writer, Joel Stein. Y'know, the sort of affable, ambitious and mouthy guy you can find in a waiter's uniform in just about any white-table cloth restaurant in L.A.
Thanks to the Times editors, we can now easily compare – say—Scheer’s last column with Stein’s first column and thereby evaluate the paper's decision to replace one with the other. Scheer’s last column of one week ago reads in part:
“Who in the White House knew about DITSUM No. 044-02 and when did they know it?
That's the newly declassified smoking-gun document, originally prepared by the Defense Intelligence Agency in February 2002 but ignored by President Bush.Its declassification this weekend blows another huge hole in Bush's claim that he was acting on the best intelligence available when he pitched the invasion of Iraq as a way to prevent an Al Qaeda terror attack using weapons of mass destruction
The report demolished the credibility of the key Al Qaeda informant the administration relied on to make its claim that a working alliance existed between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden….Yet Bush used the informant's already discredited tall tale in his key Oct. 7, 2002, speech just before the Senate voted on whether to authorize the use of force in Iraq and again in two speeches in February, just ahead of the invasion….Bush exploited the worldwide horror felt over the 9/11 attacks to justify the Iraq invasion. His outrageous claim, repeated over and over before and after he dragged the nation into an unnecessary war, was never supported by a single piece of credible evidence…"
By contrast, here’s an excerpt from the first column by Joel Stein, replacing Scheer:
“You weren’t one of those suckers who voted last week, were you? Wearing that dorky sticker on your chest all day like you just got named school safety guard?…
I've lived in this city for 10 months, and I've already been asked to vote three times — in a nonelection year. People in ancient Athens didn't vote that much, and their entertainment choices were limited to stories they could make up about star patterns. The only justifiable reason for asking Americans to vote that often is to select our idols…An election is supposed to serve a larger purpose than giving Gary Coleman a career boost. All that does is take an opportunity away from Quentin Tarantino. That little guy was a movie away from beheading Bruce Willis and then yelling, "That's what I'm talking about, Willis."…A good election starts an important political conversation…
All last Tuesday did was cause people to talk about how unnecessary elections waste money. Maybe that in itself was worth it. I just hope your stupid vote didn't hurt the message."
Whoa! What can one say after just reading those two pieces back-to-back? That it felt like I took a running start, maybe, and then threw myself off a cliff? Or that I was chewing on a prime cut of rib when some nerdy Times editor came along, ripped it out of my mouth and began to force-feed me a Bubble-Gum flavored Slurpee? Nah. That would be rather uncharitable. Better to simply offer a humble expression of gratitude to the Times for so publicly recognizing how stupid a mistake it has made, and how very, very stupid it must think we readers are.
UPDATE: (thanks to the great work of LAObserved's Kevin Roderick) More changes today at the L.A.Times opinion pages. My good bud, Bob Spichen, who has been editing the Sunday "Currents" section has now been removed and reassigned to an un-named project. After Michael Kinsley got his walking papers as Editorial Page Editor, Sipchen was a contender for the job that eventually went to Andres Martinez, so no suprise that Bob's been taken out-- but no question it's one more loss for the Times.
Martinez, meanwhile, wrote a strange little note in the paper today in which he told us all the reasons that Scheer wasn't fired. And then rather arrogantly offered no reason why he was canned. Local needler David Ehrenstein takes the piss out of Martinez's mysterious note.
Meanwhile, the Times staff prepares for more hammering beyond what's already been reported this week.
Not a great time to be a journalist. Unless, I suppose, you're some shout-show clown like Jonah Goldberg or an asterisk like Joel Stein.
November 15th, 2005 at 12:50 pm
1. It might be more fair to compare Scheer’s first column, rather than last, to this first one from Stein. In the beginning, it could take a while for a writer to find a comfortable style for himself and a fit with the readers. Give him more than one column before passing judgment.
2. Further, it might be the intention of the Times to change the slant and the tone rather than simply duplicate what’s old with another person, in which case Stein is a more appropriate selection.
3. Finally, they might be trying to cut high-priced reporters to save a few bucks. (I’m not saying, but maybe that’s why you’re safe)
November 15th, 2005 at 1:35 pm
Or perhaps we should look to substance and compare that aspect. Which I think was marc’s point.
November 15th, 2005 at 1:41 pm
Sorry Woody, Joel Stein has been belching out these self-focused, toothlessly ironic trifles for years now. See
http: //www.thejoelstein.com/writing.htm
Time is not going to cure this problem.
Scheer’s writing from years ago, collected in “Thinking Tuna Fish and Talking Death”, still holds up. And his reporting on the Wen Ho Lee fiasco was pathbreaking.
November 15th, 2005 at 2:39 pm
My mother said “if you can’t say anything nice about someone, say nothing at all”…so I have nothing to say about Joel Stein’s opedography.
November 15th, 2005 at 2:45 pm
There will be several in here surprised that I disagree with Woody. I’ve never particularly liked JS and his screed against voting chaps my fanny.
Voting IS important to a republican form of government and it damn sure doesn’t matter if it’s for dog-catcher or president. A good citizen votes when he can. Dems do it several times…
November 15th, 2005 at 3:13 pm
Scheer was a freelancer, not a “high-priced reporter,” a rare breed indeed, as I’m sure Marc can attest.
November 15th, 2005 at 3:14 pm
Michael, the link didn’t work for me. Would you re-check it.
Assuming the L.A. Times is run by businessmen who value profits, there ultimately should dollars and cents behind their actions. With declining circulation, they may have had to really trim payroll. On the other hand, they may be trying to boost circulation with a new format like that stupid happy-talk to which local television news converted to dumb down their show for the idiots who couldn’t pass Civics 101 and are the same people taking polls on Bush. It’s possible that Stein appeals to greater numbers, even if they aren’t readers of Marc’s blog.
G.M., if you’re going to disagree with me then go back to your corner.
November 15th, 2005 at 3:33 pm
Well, if you must do a “market analysis” in lieu of principled discussion, I guess a direct appeal to the non-voter, providing a justification for his/her aversion to participation in the democratic process, would constitute clever positioning. A bit shallow and opportunistic, perhaps, but nothing out of line for Tribune Corp. That company hasn’t had a commentator worth consideration since Harry Caray moved his party to the other side.
November 15th, 2005 at 5:23 pm
With a Republican Governor we have to vote several times out here.
November 15th, 2005 at 5:47 pm
I’ve hunted up a few Joel Stein columns written over the years after reading this post. I must say I’m not too impressed. He isn’t terrible, but he’s not good either. It was an effort to finish several of them without nodding off. And the humor is tepid at its hottest. It’s the kind of writing that is always a semi-tone off, that makes you yearn for a well-turned phrase, or a surprising direction, or just the invisibility of good prose. You’re still waiting at the end of each piece. It does make me wonder why the LA Times would make such a switch. Can it be just money?
Still, you must admit, “dorky sticker”–now that’s killer material.
November 15th, 2005 at 7:35 pm
Are you guys not listening? Bob was popular and paid per column a miniscule sum.
This was about money but not subscription money or salary, but BIG MONEY tied to the pending waiver request to make the Tribune Co.’s purchase of the Times legal (because they also own a television channel in the area).
This firing actually cost them money because they almost certainly paid big money to ease out Ramirez — although they’ll get that back long run by turning to cheap freelancers since they’re not hiring a cartoonist.
November 15th, 2005 at 7:48 pm
Do you think the parent company is responding to all of the “liberal” complaints from readers so-inclined? Of course Ramirewz doesn’t fit that paradigm very well, but then he didn’t get mentioned in the charges either. Blind eyes turn on when the feel like it.
November 15th, 2005 at 7:50 pm
“It might be more fair to compare Scheer’s first column…”
Woody, Scheer wouldn’t have written crap like that not just in his first LA Times column, but when he was just starting out in journalism forty-odd years ago. You might disagree with his political beliefs, but he DOES understand that political beliefs and political participation matter. Scheer hinmself ran for Congress in the Berkeley/Oakland district back in the day…disagree with him, but he’s neither pathetically shallow nor a miserable cynic.
November 15th, 2005 at 9:17 pm
reg, I honestly am not familiar with Scheer and Stein and I don’t care one way or the other about their political beliefs, since I have just come to expect most journalists to be liberal, anyway. I believe that the Times managment knows good writing from bad, but that they made a business decision to decrease costs or increase circulation with this change. If someone worse is cheaper or if he appeals to a broader range of readers, then it makes sense. Simply to compare the depth and style of the journalists might be missing the point. When all else fails and questions still abound, the easiest thing to do is to ask management why they did it. Brilliant, huh? Has Marc done that and what was the response?
November 15th, 2005 at 9:23 pm
The Times should surrender and reinstate Scheer. And, while the Tribune bosses are at it, they should name Cooper editor of the paper.
November 15th, 2005 at 10:31 pm
“If someone worse is cheaper or if he appeals to a broader range of readers, then it makes sense. Simply to compare the depth and style of the journalists might be missing the point”
I guess you’ve lost me Woody, and I don’t really know what the hell your point is, other than stringing words together in defense of “Whatever !”.
November 15th, 2005 at 11:19 pm
It is too late to reinstate Scheer. His column will now be in the CHRONICLE and he has made it clear that he wants nothing to do with the “Grey Lady” of Spring Street. And all of you reading the series on conservators: enjoy it while you can. I doubt if the Tribune Company will let reporters spend two years on a story,
When Otis Chandler was the publisher the jokes about the TIMES being the “Velvet Coffin” were all the rage. Reporters there were notorious for taking forever to get stories into print. And Richard Reeves, an old NYT vet, wrote that our dogtrainer was “Edited eith a shovel” meaning stories went on and on and on. But I remember, in the glory days of the seventies, there was always something interesting on page one and in the news section. And often I would learn something new. And the paper had the largest newshole of any major daily.
All gone now.
November 15th, 2005 at 11:37 pm
“And, while the Tribune bosses are at it, they should name Cooper editor of the paper.”
Yeah, Cooper would fit right in with all the Times’ bashing of Venezuela’s Hugo Chávez.
November 15th, 2005 at 11:57 pm
Marc is right about Joel Stein. He is your typical “writer” that hangs around LA restaurants having breakfast at 11:30am. This breed is NOT interested in politics or really anything beyond that happenings within’ the culture industry. You will hear them having passionate debates about scripts that got bought or maybe why a particular sit com is not up to snuff or how reality TV is keeping them out of work. They come to LA or NY from all over the country. Mostly from the upper middle class suburbs. They have no real interest in anything real, only the superficial world of pop culture (Joel Stein is not known for his contribution to Hardball but rather the VH1 “I Love The 80’s†series).
People that read the Times (and the political writing in the Weekly) really want the Joel Stein’s of the world to go home. They are ruining LA.
Nikki and Joel should hook up.
November 16th, 2005 at 12:03 am
reg, I hate to use “in other words,” but this is my comment in a nutshell: You are looking for journalistic excellence and management may be looking for financial excellence. The two don’t necessarily have to go together.
However, in reading Marc’s update this may be nothing more than the new editor saying that he wants his own people who will be loyal to him. That happens every day.
There seems to be no argument within this blog that the better writer was not kept. Given that, the only question is “why.” Now, let’s hope that the Times doesn’t do something very serious and mess with the sports page.
Side note: When my oldest son was about nine or ten years old, he and Otis Chandler corresponded about expensive cars, for which my son ahad an interest and for which Chandler had a big collection. I thought it was very nice that someone of Chandler’s position would take the time and interest to write to a child, and I thought it interesting that my son thought nothing of writing to Chandler.
November 16th, 2005 at 12:53 am
Oh, good one, Joel: Insult almost EVERYBODY. I suppose his marching orders from the Editors-in-Grief were “Go ahead, Joel, be funny, your schtick is holding up fine, but remember: you’re taking over Scheer’s slot. You gotta say something political. Ease into it, smoothly. Don’t grind any gears.”
For all the good it did them.
The key to good political humor is not to call your readers stupid, but to pretend to be stupid, while actually saying something smart. That’s a tradition that goes all the way back to Jonathan Swift, and further.
Free sample (while they last), just in case it’s been too long since your last laugh-out-loud political commentary fix:
http://www.ejfi.org/Voting/Voting-34.htm
November 16th, 2005 at 1:22 am
Michael– Funny that you should link to Dave Barry because I kept thinking Stein is like Barry without the talent. Anyone ever ready Barry’s New York City piece? That’s worthy of a column.
November 16th, 2005 at 1:59 am
Bizarre stuff on NRO about Roger Simon and Charles Johnson:
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/leigh200511150825.asp
“Johnson and Simon claim that, like most bloggers, they will not hesitate to own up to errors. In their view, more established media are too arrogant and hidebound to admit many of their mistakes.”
Arrogant and hidebound? LGF is never like that is it?
And of course LGF is error free and fact checked, yeah?
The irony.
“Simon and Johnson loathe ideological labels.”
Not true, actually.
Simon and Johnson don’t like people labelling them. They are quite happy labelling others.
November 16th, 2005 at 4:16 am
I’d suspect, in spite of the comment that LGF is error-free and fact checked and that Simon and Johnson loathe ideological labels, that Pajamas Media will suceed.
I’ve never particularly liked LGF, although they played a major role in gutting newsreader Rather, and Simon led me to Totten who led me here which started me blogging (so, yes, you lib types can thank Marc
The fact of the matter is, if two ultra-libs like Kos and Atrios had started PJ Media, most in here would have been de-light-ed even if it had the same business plan, same focus, and ultimately the same writers. And you say we conservatives have blinders on!
November 16th, 2005 at 7:54 am
GMR - the assertion about how we’d all be pleased as punch if Kos and Atrios launched a Bloglomerate that featured Michelle Malkin and Little Green Footballs - instead of Simon&Co - is puzzling, to say the least.
Personally, I think that Kos and Atrios have reached their level of competence. Simple Simon is, true to his newfound alliances, determined to fulfill The Peter Principle.
Most of the controversy here over PJM has been whether David Corn and Marc are lending some bogus “legitimacy” or “balance” to what is, in essence, a right-wing operation and always will be. The same questions would be raised about Kos and Atrios if they signed on (although I can’t imagine Simon asking them or their agreeing to any such thing).
Josh Marshall has but together a terrific MetaBlog over at TPMCafe, but he’s honest enough to promote it as a center-left venture for in-depth discussion of issuesbetween potential allies and not pissing contests between people who hate each other’s politics or a platform for the same ridiculous hyper-partisan crap recycled once again. It’s a serious approach to more mature blogging that also has tremendous interactivity (open source, for real) because it provides a very user friendly platform for readers blogs and features their blog entries daily. Truly innovative, without all of the fantastical pretensions.
If I want to venture into the land of Hollywood Egos, I’ve already got Arianna who just happens to be about three times smarter, five times the more provocative blogger and ten times more well-connected than these guys. Anybody who’s even remotely familiar with the web can already figure out how to avoid reading Glenn Reynolds’ pap or circumvent stepping in Malkin’s leavings. But where but at Arianna’s can I stumble on the ramblings of David Frum’s wife or an angry screed from David Mamet ? That’s Infotainment !
Despite what we’re being sold, PJM is a one click pony - deja vu all over again.
November 16th, 2005 at 8:26 am
Because some commenters are comfortably settled into the liberal cocoon, they quite literally (see their recent comments) do not know what is going on.
I don’t know much about the inner workings of the LAT. I do know what the right (see Patterico blog archives) thinks of them. They have become a lefty rag. That means that half of their potential readership is delighted with their stuff (again, see recent comments) and half is disgusted.
Providing real balance would seem to be a smart way to increase your readership - much easier (and cheaper) than improving the writing.
D’uh.
November 16th, 2005 at 8:30 am
Here’s the Yahoo News story on PJM that Simon links to…
http://tinyurl.com/7rbpj
Can anyone find anything innovative or even remotely fresh in this venture as described to date ? The bizarre touch of having New York Times veteran, Pulitzer Prize-Winner, WMD Specialist, Neo-Con Confidante Judy Miller as the celebrity draw to their launch party is ironic to the point of self-parody. It’s sort of like having Martha Stewart host the launching of a new website providing information and services for small investors. The “MSM” doesn’t get any more “MS” or Capital “M” than Judy.
November 16th, 2005 at 8:44 am
After reading about PJ Media - oh things like the “Rockefeller Center Office” that turns out to be a mail drop and “Fact Check Editors” like Jill Stewart - I hope, Marc. you are keepong your day job.
November 16th, 2005 at 9:10 am
Um, reg, did you READ the link you provided? Or is it just another case of not letting the facts get in the way of making an effete put-down (of a “Neo-Con Confidante”)?
May I quote from your link:
“We’re deliberately trying to do something new by affiliating blog and mainstream people,” said Roger L. Simon, a blogger and the venture’s co-founder.
How is getting Miller ironic? Did I miss something? Did you?
November 16th, 2005 at 9:38 am
Yeah, you’re missing something…
November 16th, 2005 at 9:40 am
I promise not to get into Woody-Go-Rounds with this guy…not worth it.
November 16th, 2005 at 9:59 am
Error free? Well you’d have to know an error when you see or when others do, and I see no evidence “errors” are recognized on these wingerville bloviator blogs. They live in a parallel universse of up-is-downism as a baseline for all of their commentary.
As for “all journalists are liberal” meme the Great Explainer perhaps should attempt to elaborate on Bush hagiographer Bill Sammon, Gertz, opionionjournal columnists, and a myriad of others who don’t appear to be liberal, and undoubtably don’t vote that way.
I guess that’s just another of those pesky blindspots. Selective amnesia can be handy except when it comes time for others to laugh at those so afflicted. Easy work. The Tribune is a conservative paper and this is just a leveling of the field through faux balance. If you can silence the voices that’s one less reminder of policies gone into the tank. One thing is certain: folks like Patterico and the like will always call LAT liberal. We’ve seen the kind of evidence used for that. Up-is-down baby.
November 16th, 2005 at 9:59 am
nutterbob2 - just so as not to sound completely dismissive, what you’re “missing” is Simon’s use of the word “new”. Nothing described therein is.
Also, as for my put-down being effete, I promise not to delete “self-aggrandizing Beltway bitch” from any future comments regarding Judy Miller. I thought I was scoring points for discretion, but fuck it…
July 23rd, 2006 at 1:26 pm
Descriptions of poker pubs their atmospheressnq