Here Lies the Gamut of Diversity

Matt Welch | November 28, 2005

Unless you live in Southern California, or subscribe to The Nation, you probably haven't heard too much about the controversy over the L.A. Times dropping grizzled lefty Bob Scheer. Basically, the old Ramparts editor says he was forced out by the publisher, possibly because of his anti-war views, possibly because he's been a long-time target of the Right; the Times denies this, points to its broadened new columnist stable (including lefty Erin Aubry Kaplan, and righty Jonah Goldberg) ... meanwhile, readers call to cancel their subscriptions, get offered incredible discounts to stay, and the paper gets on with the business of downsizing.

That's just the boilerplate prelude. The main event is this remarkable protest letter, from Rep. Dennis Kucinich and 24 of his fellow Congresssmurfs:

We, as Members of Congress, object to the dismissal of Robert Scheer, a 32-year veteran of the LA Times with a long history of excellence in reporting and op ed pieces.

Jeff Jarvis rightly objects: "Next time, folks, write as readers."

An even funnier letter to the editor came from ol' Barbra Streisand. Excerpt:

The greater Southern California community is one that not only proudly embraces its diversity, but demands it. Your decision to fire Robert Scheer is a great disservice to the spirit of our community. [...]

[A]lthough the number of contributors to your Op-Ed pages may have increased, in firing Scheer and hiring columnists such as Jonah Goldberg, the gamut of voices has undeniably been diluted. [...]

My greatest fear is that the underlying reason for Scheer's termination is part of a larger trend toward the corporatization of our media, a trend that we, as American citizens, must fervently battle for the sake of our swiftly diminishing free press.

I know that he who lives in mixed metaphors should not throw Strunk & White, but is it really possible to dilute a gamut?

For the record, I think firing Scheer was a mistake, on grounds of his representative and iconic status among Santa Monica liberals; I should also mention that he once invested a small amount money in a newspaper I co-founded, and also brought me on to write for the Online Journalism Review back when times was rough. But don't cry for Bob (not that I would expect you to) -- the San Francisco Chronicle and a local L.A. alt-weekly gobbled up his column, as did the Huffington Post, and tomorrow he launches a new webzine called TruthDig. The gamut of diversity continues to be, um, undiluted.

Comments

|11.28.05 @ 1:07PM|#

I'm shocked to find that Steisand's definition of diversity doesn't include the right. You'd almost think she's a liberal from central casting.

|11.28.05 @ 1:16PM|#

I don't think she knows what the word "gamut" means.

Replacing Sheer with Jonah isn't a loss for diversity; it's a loss for quality. He's just not much of a thinker, but if you want poop jokes...

|11.28.05 @ 1:21PM|#

The greater Southern California community is one that not only proudly embraces its diversity, but demands it. Your decision to fire Robert Scheer is a great disservice to the spirit of our community...although the number of contributors to your Op-Ed pages may have increased, in firing Scheer and hiring columnists such as Jonah Goldberg, the gamut of voices has undeniably been diluted.

er...if I understand what she's saying here correctly, and I don't guarantee that...she seems to be saying that while normally she (speaking for the entire "Southern California community," of course) demands diversity, in this case she thinks it's a bad thing...

wingnutx|11.28.05 @ 1:27PM|#

diversity = agrees with me

Jeff P.|11.28.05 @ 1:32PM|#

I thought "spectrum" was the new "gamut."

|11.28.05 @ 1:39PM|#

I just rack up Kucinich and Mecha-Streisand's complaint to selective indignation: If this were a conservative getting sacked, they would hardly think it's a defeat for "diversity." Of course, we'd be hearing the conservatives whine about "political correctness" and "liberal media bias." Not having actually read Sheer's work, I can't comment on whether I think he's worth dropping; however, I think Babs and Dennis, like my hypotheical right-wingers above, are going a little over the top in making this an issue.

|11.28.05 @ 1:44PM|#

Replacing Sheer with Jonah isn't a loss for diversity; it's a loss for quality. He's just not much of a thinker, but if you want poop jokes...

Joe,

If that Goldberg quote I kept getting on my Starbuck's cup is any indicator, I'd say you're dead on.

|11.28.05 @ 1:48PM|#

Goldberg gives the LA Times more Simpsons' references and anti-libertarian snarkiness. Guaranteed to break the ice at parties.

Ed|11.28.05 @ 1:57PM|#

"Probably the main reason they got rid of me was O'Reilly and Limbaugh made a living out of attacking me, pounding, pounding away..."

Well, at least he isn't suffering from a persecution complex.

norbizness|11.28.05 @ 1:58PM|#

Goldberg's first few efforts have been (1) to compare FDR and Pearl Harbor to Bush and the smoking gun that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud and (2) to complain about militant atheists shoving Darwinism down people's throats; after all, a lot of people he temporarily respects believe in Intelligent Design, whatever that is. He also routinely asks for research assistance from his readership on the National Review, generally for items that can be found with a Google search.

However, P.L. has the Times' decision-making process down cold: "If this be hipness, sir, then make the least of it."

|11.28.05 @ 2:02PM|#

Back in the early '90s, I remember the Times raised their machine price from 35 to 50 cents. Within a few months, the OC Register had a machine next to half the machines in LA, and it only cost a quarter. The Times had to drop their price down to a quarter too.

Don't worry about barriers to entry, make room for your competitors! Doesn't the Register already cover So Cal from the right? They're not gonna try to out right the Register, are they?

Gillespie was right about people choosing media outlets like sports teams. ...People who've been rootin' for the home team all these years aren't gonna like rootin' for the visitors. I'm not sayin' the Register 'll take off; I think it'll just exacerbate the trend of people turning to non-print media and smaller operations. ...This should be great news for the LA Weekly, whoever their parent company is, et. al.

...like the Huffington Post! Huffianna isn't a genius in disguise with incredible timing, is she? ...Tell me she isn't!

Timothy|11.28.05 @ 2:13PM|#

NRO keeps Goldberg, but dumps Beltway Buzz. A piece that for a long time the only part of the site worth reading. Now NRO isn't even worth looking at, ever.

As for Scheer, I've never read him, but I do generally like things that upset Dennis Kucinich and Barbara Streisand, so I'm siding with the LAT on this.

Matt Welch|11.28.05 @ 2:23PM|#

I forgot to mention that the same axe which lopped off Scheer's neck also fell upon conservative cartoonist Michael Ramirez. There hasn't been much of an outcry at that one.

bb|11.28.05 @ 2:27PM|#

[A]lthough the number of contributors to your Op-Ed pages may have increased, in firing Scheer and hiring columnists such as Jonah Goldberg, the gamut of voices has undeniably been diluted. [...]

Well, with Scheer gone an entire gamut of voices was lost, I'd suspect those residing in his head make up a good number.

Scheer was an embarrassment and I never understood why he enjoyed such a post with a paper that actually charged money to read it. OK, they charge very little. i think I was paying less that $5 a month when I last held a subscription, but still.

|11.28.05 @ 2:30PM|#

Jeff P.: Good point, gamut has been replaced by "spectrum," "(wide) range," "cornucopia" and even synonyms that are way off like "plethora." Add "diverse" in front of any one you choose if on a college campus or in a business meeting. It lends the extra credibility that you were brainwashed by your campus's early 90's speech code and therefore can be trusted to make decisions on criteria other than those most important.

norbizness: I don't understand your google criticism. Wouldn't you use a diverse cornucopia of readership to research something rather than doing it yourself?

|11.28.05 @ 2:33PM|#

It seems like there was a period of time when I thought Goldberg wasn't so bad. For the life of me, I can't figure out what I was thinking.

|11.28.05 @ 2:46PM|#

You know, I can't imagine anything like this being quite such a big deal in New York. Maybe if the New York Times kicked out some big name like Maureen Dowd, but I can't imagine people dropping their subscriptions over it.

The guy sounds like an ass, frankly.
"I loved living in New York, but I always found the place a bit provincial."
"If the sound of foreign languages and cultural diversity makes you so twitchy, maybe California is not the place for you."
And the guy thought New York was "provincial"? This bit is unintentionally funny:
"The paper is in decline. They have 300,000 fewer readers now than when I went to work there nearly thirty years ago..."
Yeah, sounds like a real winning track record you have there, bucko.

Most of the complaints seem to boil down to the usual "evil corporations are sucking the souls from our newspapers", though. If people really wanted the local, liberal commentators, wouldn't it make more sense, and money, to keep them? Funny how the complaint is usually that corporations don't care about anything but money - until the topic turns to the media, at which they are accused of being philosophy-driven ideologues.

|11.28.05 @ 2:48PM|#

Ah, I remember Ramirez from Memphis. I was astounded when he got a better gig, not because of his bias but because he just wasn't very good. The number one rule about political cartooning (well, or any political humor) is that regardless what the biases are, it just has to be funny, and he wasn't. The letters to the editor in Memphis used to be flooded with complaints about Ramirez's views, just like they are now with his liberal successor. MY complaint is that neither one of them has ever made me laugh.

|11.28.05 @ 3:17PM|#

Replacing Scheer's column with the contents of my cats' litterbox would have been an upgrade.

|11.28.05 @ 3:21PM|#

I thought Omar Minaya was bringing Ramirez to New York?

norbizness|11.28.05 @ 3:30PM|#

Snake: Not openly!

Matt Welch|11.28.05 @ 3:31PM|#

snake -- Oh, Man....

dead Elvis -- My take on Ramirez exactly. Terrific artist, terrible cartoonist (anyone who has to write labels on all his symbols ("Iraq Policy," "United Nations," etc.) seems to be lacking a fundamental skill set of cartooning.

JD -- Wasn't Anthony Lewis' retiring/firing a semi-big deal?

|11.28.05 @ 4:48PM|#

It's been a while since I subscribed to the LAT, but I remember liking Scheer. He had enough of a maverick streak to endorse Tom Campbell for Senate in 2000.

Jammer|11.28.05 @ 5:40PM|#

Scheer is an absolute twit. He's Central Casting's idea of a wacky liberal. Fox News central casting. Its ridiculous.

They could have replaced him with David Corn, a guy I usually disagree with but who at least manages to look like he's trying to be fair most of the time.

James Anderson Merritt|11.28.05 @ 7:39PM|#

Jason Ligon said, "It seems like there was a period of time when I thought Goldberg wasn't so bad. For the life of me, I can't figure out what I was thinking."

And for me, it seemed like there was a period of time when I was the only one around here who was calling BS on Goldberg on his snarky anti-libertarian shtick. Now you Jonah whalers-come-lately are trying to muscle in on my territory. Well ... well ... well ... you go right ahead -- the water's fine and thar he blows! (CHUNKS, that is.)

I've never been much of a fan of Scheer, but libertarians knew where they stood with him and others of his stripe. Goldberg was always like the abusive older brother that you "have to love" because he's "in the family" (the so-called conservative family that, according to Goldberg and other GOP opinion drovers, includes libertarians who ought to get a life, quit bitchin' and get in line to vote for the neocon GOP). He'd lure us close with claims of familial affiliation, then spit on us and laugh at our geeky naivete for trusting him. If anyone let him have it for his arrogant frat-boy rudeness, he'd get all petulant and say, "lighten up, it was only a joke." What a transparent routine; it got old REAL fast.

IF the LAT let Scheer walk and kept Goldberg, that's just one more reason for me to avoid the LAT. I hope I'm around to see what happens when Goldberg finally gets "Scheered."

|11.28.05 @ 7:51PM|#

Just out of morbid curiosity, what was Goldberg's Starbucks quote?

|11.28.05 @ 8:05PM|#

Give a gamut.
Don't dilute.

|11.28.05 @ 9:48PM|#

From the BBC:
The guidelines come after a number of unfortunate cultural faux pas, including an Israeli couple kissing at their Hindu wedding ceremony and a Finnish woman walking naked down the streets of Pushkar.

Amy Alkon|11.28.05 @ 11:23PM|#

Barbra Streisand is to big thinking what Jessica Simpson is to pro hockey.

|11.29.05 @ 1:01AM|#

Give a gamut.
Don't dilute.

I thought "gamut" rhymed with "dammit," but I am too lazy to look it up.

|11.29.05 @ 5:55AM|#

"And the guy thought New York was "provincial"?"

Well, whatever he thought about New York, there is that traditional New Yorker's myopia that I've found in a fair percentage of New Yorkers I've gotten to know. It's always reminded me a lot of the attitude you used to get with a lot of Texans, they make a big deal over where they come from. I don't know if you'd call it provincial but too much of it is annoying, for sure.

Damian P.|11.29.05 @ 10:01AM|#

Barbra Streisand is to big thinking what Jessica Simpson is to pro hockey.

Barbra Streisand is to big thinking what Jessica Simpson is to big thinking.

|11.29.05 @ 10:53AM|#

Don't dilute gamut, dammit!

Is that better?

|11.29.05 @ 7:48PM|#

Matt Welch - Yeah, I guess that was something...doesn't seem like as big a deal, emotionally, as this, but that could just be my faulty memory.

Douglas Fletcher - I'll definitely grant you that a lot of New Yorkers think that outside a 50-mile radius of Times Square everything is a vast cultural wasteland and everyone a tobacky-chawin' hick (with the possible exceptions of Boston, Washington DC, San Francisco, and LA). I think I mentioned a while ago my boss claiming that people in the Midwest think Jews have horns. But that wasn't quite the feeling I got from the quote. I mean, in terms of internationalism, New York is the place to be. I'd put it up against LA any day. That's why I juxtaposed those two quotes - they just don't quite seem to make sense taken together.