The Ungraceful Decline of the Los Angeles Times

· 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.

Any comments?

Lose this stuff:

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.

The point of such debate pieces is to bring people over to your side of the argument. There are literally millions of people out there who would be willing to seriously consider your main point, that the Times has largely abandoned any pretense of objectivity and turned into a liberal shill, but the moment they see you referring to gays as "deviants," they're going to decide YOU'RE the problem and walk away.

Put another way: About 3/4 of the country believes, or at least suspects, the media is filled with liberal bias, but almost as many people (not always the SAME people, mind you) believe gays should not be publicly demonized, at least not merely for existing. So it simply isn't worth it to even bring the topic of sexuality into an argument about press bias.

been reading the times since i moved to la in 1985.

the decline of the times, and the orange county register, owe to the disinclination of the grandchildren to take responsibility and run their families' businesses.

otis chandler was more interested in surfing than in the family paper. nicholas coleridge in paper tigers, a book on the major newspapers in the u.s., tells a funny story about chandler:

otis was chairing an l.a. times corporate meeting, in of all places, oxnard, ca, when a secretary delivered a note to him. picking it up and reading it, chandler dismissed the board meeting and left on the run. the officers wondered what was so damn important, so one of them retrieved the note from the trash. the note said: " surf's up"!

the same thing happened with the oc register. it was a good paper until about 1991, when the younger generation decided that they wanted nothing of the work in managing the family business--freedom newspapers, libertarian in politics. freedom newspapers owns the colorado springs gazette telegraph, also once a great libertarian paper. freedom newspapers was turned over to a hired ceo who has installed multiculturalism and kicked out libertarian writers, except for sunday editorials.

the l.a. times in my opinion really went down hill when tom johnson left for cnn, about 1989. until then, the times was interesting. after johnson left the editorial content seemed to be more and more dominated by socialists, for example, editors such as robert scheer and his wife, former maoists in the 1970s.

the first half of the 1990s were the worst in radical feminism--constant deriding of white males, christianity, and multiculturalism.

multiculturalism as practiced even currently by the l.a. times focuses on minorities, gays and lesbians, and jews--they are usually the white people depicted in feature articles. to understand the l.a. times of the early-to-mid-1990s you need to read robert horowitz' chapter titled "the religious roots of radicalism" in his book the politics of bad faith.

i liked the article in about 1995 concerning jewish women in which they admitted that they felt superior to other women. even the obituaries are dominated by jews; while only 2% of the population, they seem to be dying off at the rate of 70-80% of the population today!

of course the times focuses heavily on hollywood because that is one of the cities' major industries. but you'd think it was the only industry in los angeles, which is not the case. the l.a.t. business section is the poorest section of the paper, which indicates the socialist orientation .

yes, i read with interest the olson stories. they were pathetic--they indicate that the editors are indeed 1970s hippie radicals. and they openly wished for olson's release.

the los angeles times has no idea of "objectivity". many examples come to mind, but the hit piece several years ago on daryl issa stands out. issa since then has successfully run for the u.s. congress. but then he was going to challenge barbara boxer for the u.s. senate. out of the blue comes this hit piece in the l.a. times saying that issa had been involved in murdering his former business partners in indiana. if this were true, why isn't he in jail? as it turns out there was no truth to the charge. issa is a member of the u.s. congress today.

the decline of the media in the states owes also to the offering of college degrees in journalism in the 1960s. during the 1980s i worked at a university and had access to sat's and gre's; the journalists' scores were the lowest--down there with the education majors.

before the rise of college degrees in journalism, journalists were history or english majors, and thus they had either a knowledge of history of the english language. even then before the 1960s many journalists were not even college educated. these journalists were often driven by a desire to expose corruption in government or business; they excelled at investigatory journalism. today, the media does little investigation. why? because corporations bought out the media; no one who wants to keep a job will dare to really investigate either business or the government.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.