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.

[Partisan Hack]

Ping

[Vince Ferrer]

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

My vote goes to the Rodney King riots, when a LA Times photographer was caught trying to incite a group of black people on a street to riot by throwing rocks at them, in order to get a picture of their response.

[AndyJackson]

Title should have been "disgraceful" not "ungraceful"