LA Times responds to readers re. Robert Scheer's firing

[DeepModem Mom]

Andres Martinez
A note to our readers

When a columnist misses his usual spot in the rotation, we normally run a short note explaining his absence. Today, Robert Scheer's column will not appear. Consider this a longer-than-usual note of explanation.

Scheer's impassioned prose has graced these pages for 13 years. Last week we announced a new roster of 10 columnists that will appear on this page every week, and Scheer's name was not on it. Hundreds of readers called and wrote to protest. We are grateful — humbled — that readers care so deeply about the content of these opinion pages and the columnists who appear on them.

Assessing the merits of a column, like assessing the merits of a movie, is a subjective exercise, so readers can agree to disagree over the wisdom of our decision. It's inaccurate, however, to ascribe ideological motives to our decision to stop running Scheer's column.

Some readers have complained that The Times is conspiring to silence liberal voices on the Op-Ed page. Others have gone so far as to suggest that Scheer is being punished for opposing the war in Iraq. But that is hardly a badge of shame around here — the newspaper's own editorial page opposed the decision to invade Iraq.

The truth is that we now publish more Op-Ed columnists — early in 2004 we featured only three regular columnists — than ever before, including more liberal voices (and conservative ones) than ever before. It's also true that some of our columnists are not easily labeled on either side of the ideological divide, which we think is healthy. The goal, as always, remains to offer readers a lively exchange of opinions from across the political spectrum....

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-martinez15nov15,0,7356300.column?coll=la-home-oped

[still_one]

1. It is a B.S. response

Scheer was on with Amy Goodman yesterday on FSTV, he said the paper is catering to the administration for FCC favors later this year. Others are being affected at the paper also. The paper will be taking a right wing shift

People who feel strongly about this, and subscribe to the LA times should cancel their subscriptions as a protest, and let them know why

[Fenris]

2. It's amazing how all those words say so very little.

They still don't explain why Scheer was cut and Boot kept on. Or why Goldberg was added. Or why they decided to keep Joel Stein's pointless, vapid Tuesday column.

[leveymg]

3. Joins Michael Kinsley on the outside.

At first, I thought this was Kinsley's doing. I was wrong. Sorry, Michael. It's the publisher whose behind the purge. See Kinsley's parting e-mail to collaegues in September, below.

Anyway, my vitriol is extended to the publisher, Mr. Jeffery Johnson, who is assuring that the LAT is now less.

Here's Kinsley's parting missive:

http://www.laobserved.com/archive/2005/09/kinsley_leaving_on_bitter_1.html
From: Michael Kinsley
Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2005 4:54 AM
Subject: local news

Hi. In case you haven't heard already, the Publisher is announcing this morning that I'm leaving the Los Angeles Times. The news stories a few weeks ago saying that I would be giving up managerial duties but staying with the paper were not wrong. That is what I wanted and what John Carroll wanted too. But Jeff wants a "clean break." He did offer to discuss at some future date the possibility of my continuing to write a column as a non-employee. And he raised the possibility of some consulting on web matters down the road.

This did not seem overly welcoming, and further inquiries by me and others have made clear that it wasn't intended to. For whatever reason, Jeff isn't merely uninterested in any future contribution I might make, but actively wants me gone. So I'm off, with some regret and some excitement, to the Washington Post, duties TBD but including the column. I hope it will continue to appear in the LA Times as well, but that is beyond my control.

I'm sorry this has ended on a bitter note. I've loved my brief time at the Los Angeles Times. I've learned a l lot, and made (I hope) some friends for life. Even the frustrations have been fascinating frustrations. And I think I've done some good for the paper, though others may not agree. The LA Times has some of the nicest people and finest journalists I've ever worked with, starting at the top with Dean. And even Jeff will have to give me credit for bringing in Andres. I expect great things from him, and from you.

Reading last Sunday's excellent Current section, put out while Bob was on vacation, it struck me that one test of an editor is how could his or per product is when he or she is not around. That is one way to measure the strength of an editor's vision and the quality of the people he or she has chosen to work with. Sipchen passes the test with flying colors. I'm counting on all of you to help me pass it too, starting now.
Thanks.

Mike

Ps I'm in DC, but there will be opportunities for mawkish farewells or spitballs in the next few weeks.




Posted September 13, 2005 11:13 AM

© 2003-2005

[DeepModem Mom]

4. Actually, I think Michael Kinsley is no longer at the LAT. nt

[leveymg]

5. Thanks for that correction. I'm glad I was able to edit in time.

That should be a lesson to me about jumping to conclusions in the dark near cliffs.

[DeepModem Mom]

7. And thanks for adding that from Kinsley! nt

[Zomby Woof]

6. At least they dumped Ramirez

Their ignorant wingnut cartoonist.

Still, the dismissal of Scheer is proof that the Times is but a shell of its former self.

[calimary]

8. I HATED ramirez. HATED him. Simpering bush apologist.

It ALMOST makes the loss of Scheer bearable. Well... on second thought, not really. But canceling ramirez IS a public service. The guy's work, and viewpoint, was just frickin' twisted.

[CatWoman]

9. heh

every month or two I send him a simple email: You Suck.

:D

[wtmusic]

10. blah political spectrum blah blah healthy blah blah blah

what they don't offer is a reason why he was fired.