LATer to NYT: I pray you’re never run by ex-radio hatchet men

Romenesko Letters
Los Angeles Times environmental editor Geoff Mohan writes to the New York Times (and cc’s his letter to Romenesko): “I was shocked today (1/24/11) to find there are people who gripe about the good old days in Los Angeles, and I thank the New York Times for visiting our city to tell us they were here.” …I pray the New York Times doesn’t have to close sections, shrink its newsprint, whore its front page to advertisers and cut its staff in half while a gang of former radio hatchet men hired by a megalomaniacal real estate imp guts the company.” || CJR’s reaction and a Romenesko reader’s comment.


Los Angeles Times newsman Geoffrey Mohan’s letter to the New York Times (with copies sent to Romenesko and CJR)

I was shocked today (1/24/11) to find there are people who gripe about the good old days in Los Angeles, and I thank the New York Times for visiting our city to tell us they were here. Equally, I thank you for couching your astonishing discovery with dismissals of the late accomplishments of the bemoaned Los Angeles Times.

“Never mind,” Jeremy Peters instructs, that “The [Los Angeles] Times is considered a front-runner to win a Pulitzer Prize this year for its coverage of city officials in Bell who gave themselves enormous salaries, a story that tapped into a growing national outrage over wasteful government spending.

“Or that it still maintains, despite all the bloodletting since the paper was bought in 2000 by the Tribune Company, 13 foreign bureaus, more than any other large metropolitan daily except The Washington Post.

“Or that it is the only big-city daily that still employs a battalion of correspondents stationed in cities across the country.

What matters, apparently, is that a 66-year-old merchant in a “quaint” neighborhood misses “the old Hollywood starlets and socialites who graced the society pages.” For that, we are not the “world-class paper” that we used to be.

Never mind? That’s a dagger in the backs of good journalists who have survived a withering battle and managed to hang on to our ideals, quality and integrity. I pray the New York Times doesn’t have to close sections, shrink its newsprint, whore its front page to advertisers and cut its staff in half while a gang of former radio hatchet men hired by a megalomaniacal real estate imp guts the company. But let’s note that The New York Times’ institutional stamina remains untested by the kinds of trials we have overcome.

I grew up reading the New York Times, the Daily News and the Staten Island Advance. The Times sure could cover the world and expand the horizons of a son of a fireman. But in its own city, it never ventured far from midtown Manhattan. Take a poll of readers in the “outer boroughs” of New York City and see what people there think of the haughty broad brush of the New York Times, which never fails to underestimate their intelligence and overestimate their patience.

This institutional habit might explain why your reporter would resort to the tired cliché we find in the second paragraph: “Here in the city that has always strived to show how a sense of sophistication lies beneath the silicone and the superficial, The Times has joined the city’s impossible freeway traffic as a unifying force of complaint.”

I celebrate the fact that we once obtained “world class” status despite our implants and superficiality. But I’m puzzled at what “world class” means – no doubt because I fled the gravitational pull of Manhattan and moved to the West Coast, in the process losing dozens of IQ points as I crossed the borders of states that New Yorkers define as “flyover.”

I do know this about where I live and where I write: The Los Angeles Times put an “outer borough” city on the map by going there and digging out the truth, without the extra sections and laid-off superstars or society pages full of Hollywood starlets bemoaned by the middle-aged west-siders Jeremy Peters interviewed.

When Jeff Gottlieb and Ruben Vives showed up to the Bell city council after breaking the story of how that city was ransacked, many of the residents who flooded the room had the Los Angeles Times in their hands, some for the first time. And they demanded that Jeff and Ruben sign their copies. That’s probably not World Class.

It’s just plain class.

Geoffrey Mohan

ADVERTISEMENT

We have made it easy to comment on posts, however we require civility and encourage full names to that end (first initial, last name is OK). Please read our guidelines here before commenting.

  • Anonymous

    Excuse me for being dumb. What is Mr. Mohan saying in this letter? Is he happy with the LA Times today or not?

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=504633504 Dan Mitchell

    This is a very odd letter. Mohan seems to be looking under rocks to find something to take offense at (the great American pastime), to the point of actually using material from the NYT story he disses that runs directly counter to his complaints about it (or so I believe — the nature of his complaints isn’t entirely clear). The results are downright bizarre.

    Does Mohan really believe that Peters was *dismissing* all the good stuff about the LAT in that litany of the paper’s strengths? On the contrary, Peters pointed those things out to make clear that the paper still has many strengths despite the ruination caused by the Tribune’s owners. That seemed entirely clear to me. “Never mind that…” was a rhetorical device, not a directive to readers. I assume most LA readers realized this — at least those who weren’t offended before they even started reading the story.

    But even weirder is Mohan’s assumption that Peters was somehow using his perch at the NYT to ridicule the LAT. He wasn’t, of course, but that didn’t stop Peters from forging ahead with his misguided thesis, going so far as to paint the NYT as the organ of coastal elites who consider everything west of Manhattan as (oy) “flyover country.” Of course, one needs a place to fly over the country *to.* Where is that? Sydney? Is Los Angeles the new Omaha? I’m confused.

    And all this stuff about the radio clowns who did their best to bring down the quality of the LAT, and how Mohan rhetorically hopes that doesn’t happen to the NYT. Well, that’s kinda what the story was about, wasn’t it? That the radio clowns nearly wrecked the Times? Peters and Mohan seem to agree on this point, so I’m still left wondering exactly what Mohan’s problem with the story was. Since most of his letter was loaded with resentful irrelevancies (sans evidence) about the NYT’s (and therefore, Peters’) supposed elitist attitudes toward LA, and didn’t contain many concrete complaints about the story itself, I really can’t tell.

    Disclosures: I have written for the NYT. I would also gladly write for the LAT. I read and enjoy both papers every day, and I wish both of them great success. I have never lived in New York or LA, and I now reside in the flyover city of Oakland, Ca.

  • Anonymous

    Yeah, I think Mr. Mohan didn’t quite understand the thrust of the NYT piece. The reporter was pointing up the strengths of the LA Times, not dismissing them. And I didn’t get the feeling when I read the piece that he was crowing at all. And the LA Times HAS been taken over by Chicago ex-radio hatchet men. So I can understand Mr. Mohans grief and frustration.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=504633504 Dan Mitchell

    I understand it too, believe me. I recall noting in passing several years ago (I think here on Romenesko) how far the Mercury News had fallen under Dean Singleton’s soulless cost cutting. I received several angry notes from edit staffers there who seemed to think I was criticizing *them.* I’ve never understood it, but journalists seem more prone than anyone to blame the messenger. On Twitter, James Rainey actually calls the NYT story a “slam job.” Which is just mind-blowing. When I read the story, I thought it was a fine assessment of the incredible job the LAT has managed to do (journalistically) despite the radio buffoons’ buffoonery.

  • http://www.anamericanlion.com/ Norman Rogers

    Well, to be fair, Randy Michaels really likes boobies.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_HXSRMIIGTCV2GRQWBOD42OZMRY Julie

    In my view, the LA Times is one of the top papers in the country, and I read a lot of city papers. So I agree with Mohan and thought the NYT piece was off the mark and pointless, highlighting weird criticisms that aren’t really relevant issues for the citizens of LA. I think the LA Times’ woes are, yes, the result of the new ownership, budget cuts and loss of readership due to the digital migration. And given that, what they did in Bell was nothing short of amazing.

  • Anonymous

    The New York Times piece had no peg — what made it news? Given the NYT is trawling So Cal for LAT readers, the news side running this piece for no particular reason other than slagging a competitor made it feel as if the writer was singing for his supper and the NYT editorial department was in league with circulation.

  • Anonymous

    I’m saying that it’s thin reporting, a pat premise, has no depth and is reliant on cliches and broad-brush conclusions. He goes through absolute calisthenics to maintain his simplistic premise that people gripe about the Times – even when the evidence of us coming back is so much more compelling. Bottom line: He managed to prove that the New York Times is not what it used to be.

  • http://twitter.com/Cruftbox Michael Pusateri

    I live in Los Angeles and receive both the LA Times and NY Times each morning. They are literally delivered in the same plastic bag. I consider myself in good position to comment on this.

    The truth is that the LA Times has suffered noticeably under the current management. The reduction in overall pages, expanded use of full wire service stories, and the addition of the LateExtra section are all examples where cost cutting is leading to a less unique and informative paper. The serendipity of learning new things is lessened when many of the stories are simply the wire service versions that appeared on the net the day before.

    More coverage of business such as entertainment, gaming, and technology – core elements of the Southern California economy – is needed.

    On the online side, the LA Times has been making great progress and has a lot to offer. But on the paper side, I have to admit, the impact of the current management is felt by long time readers.

    The NY Times is good, but is not immune from issues faced by paper readers either. The NY Times’s inexplicable policy for splitting stories between sections of the newspaper is annoying. Read the first four paragraphs on the front page and then switch to the interior page of the Business sections just to complete an article? Also, as an LA based reader, NY’s obsession with new restaurants, hot nightclubs, and quirky chefs is right out of a Woody Allen movie.

  • Anonymous

    When an article in the NYT about LA includes silicon, superficiality and makes metaphors to traffic jams in the first paragraph, you know you’re not reading a submission for the Pulitzer Prize. That being said, the most offensive part of the J.W. Peter’s NYT article was the notion that not having a football team and losing the 2016 Olympics was somehow a psychological blow to the city’s self-esteem and world class stature. These are supposed issues of inferiority that are so often, and with suspected glee, thrust upon the city as having, but in reality, don’t enter the consciousness of the average LA citizen. The NYT should know better.

blog comments powered by Disqus