The Ungraceful Decline of the Los Angeles Times

California Political Review ^ | November 8, 2001 | James Bemis

[jbemis]

THE UNGRACEFUL DECLINE OF THE LOS ANGELES TIMES

BY JAMES BEMIS

What would you think about a publication that:

· Carried a "news" article arguing that accused LAPD squad car bomber (and mascot of the radical chic crowd) Sara Jane Olson was innocent, five days after Olson pleaded guilty to the crime.

Then, editorialized that the judge should reject Olson's guilty plea and let the case go to trial so we can find out whether the former Symbionese Liberation Army member is "a genuine martyr or a failed murderer."

· Publishes an arts and entertainment section that regularly evidences an unhealthy obsession with deviant lifestyles, in which readers often think they've picked up "The Guide to Gay and Lesbian Nightlife" by mistake.

· Despite the dire need for economic stimulus, took the editorial position that a recession fighting, tax reduction package proposed by President Bush was too favorable to "the rich," parroting the socialist party line. Ignoring common sense and economic history, the journal argued that tax rate cuts "would injure, not heal, the economy."

Would you guess the publication in question was: 1) the west coast edition of The Village Voice, that voice of unredeemed sixties radicalism, 2) the current issue of Rolling Stone, or 3) a counter-cultural rag dedicated to the overthrow of America's traditional values?

Wrong, wrong, and wrong again. (Well, give yourself partial credit if you chose number 3.) It was the Los Angeles Times, covering the Southland for the week ending November 6, 2001.

The Times was rocked recently by news that its average weekday circulation for the six months ended September 30 dropped to 972, 957 - a decline of nearly 5%. This loss was the second highest among the nation's top 20 newspapers.

Growing up in Southern California, I remember the Times as our respected newspaper of record, the Great Gray Lady of western journalism. As a kid, I devoured the sports section, later loving the hardheaded, straight shooting news coverage and Calendar, the cultural section. Columnists Jack Smith and Jim Murray were heroes of mine who could write brilliantly on the most ordinary, mundane topics. To paraphrase Will Rogers, they never met a man they didn't like writing about.

Jack Smith wrote a column every day for about thirty years and was never dull. He made his next-door neighbor seem as interesting as Churchill. Blessed with a dry wit, Smith's love for simple, hard-working people echoed throughout his work. He was the most human of writers, bringing a light touch to even the heaviest of subjects, his own mortality.

For lots of us, Jim Murray was the Times. To call Murray a great sportswriter really misses the point; as many said, he was a great writer who happened to cover sports. No one captured the nobility or foibles of sports personalities as he did. Nearly blind, like Homer, he saw with the penetrating vision of the heart. When Murray died some years ago, he took something irreplaceable with him. He was the Times' last link with its distinguished past.

I don't know exactly when the Times began its decay, but I suspect it was when the paper made the conscious decision to try to be the west coast equivalent of the New York Times. It's done that, of course - with a vengeance. This means, like its Manhattan model, genuflecting before the arts and entertainment crowd and obsessively following the latest liberal craze; last year illegal immigrant rights, this year gay marriage, next year, . . . who knows?

It's bad enough (though acceptable) that the Times' editorial page has been intellectually corrupted by left-wing politics, but the selection and writing of its "news" stories are now also colored by liberal pieties. Sometimes I imagine the paper is actually being published as a delicious tongue-in-cheek satire on political correctness by some clever college students. "No way," I think, "the editors can't really believe that . . ."

The Times' precipitous drop in circulation (from 1.25 million readers a few years ago to less than 1 million today) began with its abandonment of the tough job of honest journalism for the easy one of courtier to Hollywood. Nary a week goes by without a front-page story about the latest entertainment deal, movie executive cat fight, or flattery piece on a hot star or starlet, pushing real news into the background.

In a recent string of articles about benefit fundraisers for terrorist victims, rock stars like Paul McCartney and Elton John were written about in reverential, almost prayerful tones the way the British used to refer to the King or Catholics to the Pope. The Times now prides itself on out-scooping Variety and TV Guide for insider gossip. You'll search the paper in vain for anything other than validation of Hollywood's most fashionable thinking. This is the Times' new mission: handmaiden to the stars.

Well, the Great Gray Lady has tossed away her honor and is now trying to stuff herself into today's fashions. It's like seeing the dignified widow down the block sell her magnificent wardrobe and begin appearing around the neighborhood wearing baggy T-shirts, saggy pants and a baseball cap on backwards. There's only one thing sillier than teenagers trying to stay hip: it's adults straining to be in step with the latest adolescent fads. The more the Times huffs and puffs to keep up with The Latest Thinking, the more dignity - and readers - it loses.

[LantzALot]

I don't know exactly when the Times began its decay, but

I can't say for certain, either, but I do remember a morning in the early eighties when I looked at the front page of my Times and saw that of the ten or so articles featured on the front page, seven of them used the word, "victim" or its equivalent in either the headline or the lead paragraph. None of the subjects of those articles were otherwise honorable people, but members of the diverse groups of useful idiots courted by the left.

Now when the telemarketers call to try to get me to subscribe to their "newspaper", I give them the favorite liberal line:

"I know newspapers.
I used to work for a newspaper.
And believe me, The Los Angeles Times is no newspaper.

[LantzALot]

Their inclusion of the vitriolic Conrad editorial cartoons ....

At one time, I enjoyed Conrad. But then, at one time I Was what we used to mean by the term, "Liberal." Konrad lost his wit (began showing nothing but vitriol) over Nixon, and from the early 70's to when the Times finally dumped him, years after Nixon was gone, that was his only topic.

[DoughtyOne]

Thanks, I think you're right.

[DoughtyOne]

I understand that it's gone downhill. I believe that up until about five years ago it was still a fairly good paper.

[DoughtyOne]

If I'm not mistaken Conrad is still revived from time to time for an isolated cartoon. Eck!

[CdMGuy]

First, as to the LA Times, it has always been a left wing rag for the 31 years I have lived in So Cal. However, things have taken a significant turn for the worse since the paper was acquired by the Chicago Tribune Co. I would have expected just the opposite.

For years, I subscribed to the OC Register. Then, it became a collection of stories from AP, the NY Times, the Wall Street Journal, Reuters, etc. They had no national or international writers, so they bought the news. Except for the WSJ, all their sources were left wing. And this from a paper that claims it is libertarian.

In desperation, I dropped the Register and tried the Times for a while. Earlier this year, I couldn't stand seeing the Times at my front door every morning and went back to the Register. Unfortunately, the Register can't even cover the local So Cal and Orange County news properly. So now, I am considereing dropping it again.

[RonDog]

The Times was rocked recently by news that its average weekday circulation for the six months ended September 30 dropped to 972, 957 - a decline of nearly 5%. This loss was the second highest among the nation's top 20 newspapers.

Isn't our system of free enterprise WONDERFUL?
How much MORE pain must they endure before they CHANGE, to reflect the demands of the marketplace?

Is there any chance that business will get SO bad that the L.A. Times will someday actually start printing JOURNALISM?

If you listen to Hugh Hewitt, or read his commentaries,
this (active) PING list is for YOU!
Please post your comments, and BUMP!

(If you want OFF - or ON - my (active) "Hugh Hewitt PING list" - please let me know.)

[RonDog]

"It's bad enough (though acceptable) that the Times' editorial page has been intellectually corrupted by left-wing politics, but the selection and writing of its 'news' stories are now also colored by liberal pieties.
Sometimes I imagine the paper is actually being published as a delicious tongue-in-cheek satire on political correctness by some clever college students.
'No way,' I think, 'the editors can't really believe that . . .'

The Times' precipitous drop in circulation (from 1.25 million readers a few years ago to less than 1 million today) began with its abandonment of the tough job of honest journalism..."

Wonderful news. Excellent analysis. This "precipitous drop" could not happen to a more DESERVING "newspaper."

.

(Note to FReepers: There are TWO WAYS to notify Hugh Hewitt listeners, ACTIVE and PASSIVE:

1 - ACTIVE (as I just did with my PREVIOUS reply) - Post a reply To: MANY individual FReepers, so that this reply shows up when any of those members does a Self-Search.
2 - PASSIVE (as eureka! did in post #3 of this thread) - Post a reply To: Hugh Hewitt, which is an official Free Republic bump_list, so that it will show up ONLY when someone clicks the "Hugh Hewitt bump_list" link, http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/involved?group=81)

[anniegetyourgun]

I almost wish I could sign up just for the joy of cancelling.

[Joe Boucher]

I grew up in L.A. and 25 years ago the Times was a good readable newspaper. Since then it has gone down like an anchor. I use to get a Sunday paper to check out the city and how it was going. Now the city sucks and the paper isn't worth using as ass wipe.

[Landru]

"Isn't our system of free enterprise WONDERFUL?"

~sigh~
Yea. Ain't it great...FE works just like a wash machine.

"Is there any chance that business will get SO bad that the L.A. Times will someday actually start printing JOURNALISM?"

Yes & no, IMO.

No; not under the current owner(s) & the managers (lapdogs) they've appointed to run the place.
Coincidentally, the same managers who're mercilessly running that business into the ground.

Yes; when telling the truth, the whole truth, & nothing but the truth once again becomes...*trendy*?

Well after all, it "is" LA we're talking about here, eh? :^)

[onedoug]

#8: LA Bump!

Thank God for the internet, and FreeRepublic!

[GSWarrior]

Haven't read the Times in years. Is that idiot Robert Hilburn still editing the Calendar section?

[doug from upland]

The TIMES sucks. They keep calling me to take the rag and I tell them I will take it when they expose Bill Clinton's rape of Juanita Broaddrick, when they use the correct words "illegal aliens," and when they dump Bill Shearer. Not before.

[Angelique]

This is good news, but not as good as Disney concluding its fiscal year in the red!

[onyx]

LATimes survives only because it's the only rag in town. Alot of cities have the same problem, but LA is harmed the most by its left-wing publication that claims it's a "newspaper."

[Nogbad]

autoPing

[VOA]

...readers often think they've picked up "The Guide to Gay and Lesbian Nightlife" by mistake.

LOL!
As an Okie who got occupationally-relocated to the UCLA/Westwood/Brentwood
area over five years ago...my humble opinion is that the staff at The Left Angeles Times
goes to bed muttering to themselves "I wish all of LA could be like West Hollywood".
(Kinda' a gay version of "I wish they could all be California girls".)

What has STUNNED me in my time working and living on the Westside of Los Angeles is the
ABSCENCE of "gay" culture.
True, when I arrived here on a Labor Day weekend, I was greeted by with a very kindly
"Hello" by two young ladies walking just south of UCLA, holding hands.
And when a relative came to "The Big City" and we went over to the Beverly Center
there was a male couple blissfully holding hands.

Otherwise...this place seems as straight as Oklahoma...except some folks
probably go through more sexual partners on average.

But the Los Angeles Times...I buy it about once a week for the Fry's Electronics adverts.
If I really want to know what's going on in Los Angeles, I get the free weekley,
"NewTimes LA". MUCH better investigative reporting on local affairs than the Left Angeles Times.

[The Vast Right Wing]

It's Scheer madness I tell you!!