Lots of things can be said about editor Tina Brown (who had her greatest U.S. successes with VANITY FAIR and THE NEW YORKER--and is now known for tabloiding the print edition of NEWSWEEK to death), but in the midst of a kiss-kiss conversation with Michael Kinsley (original editor of the webzine Slate.com) for NEW YORK magazine, she has some dead-on words for newspapers that make too many cuts for the sake of profitability (and commit journalistic hara-kiri in the process):
"Well, I think their [THE WASHINGTON POST's] whole decision to be a local paper was not the right decision. I mean, I think that they destroyed their influence and brand by becoming so local. They had some of the world’s best writers on that paper. But they’ve somehow shrunk—the more local they’ve become, the more they’ve shrunk their whole footprint".
Showing posts with label THE LOS ANGELES TIMES. Show all posts
Showing posts with label THE LOS ANGELES TIMES. Show all posts
Monday, November 19, 2012
Thursday, August 23, 2012
Adieu Patrick Goldstein's LA TIMES "Big Picture" column.
Further Goldstein Thoughts :: Hollywood Elsewhere
Patrick Goldstein was a part of the LOS ANGELES TIMES for quite awhile; I first remember reading his rock-gossip "Pop Eye" column. And for the past dozen years, he was on the film Industry beat, writing "The Big Picture" column mixing "what directors and studios told me" anecdotes, Right-leaning salvos against Hollywood liberals (I remember singer/songwriter Nellie McKay taking a few minutes during a concert at Sunset Strip's Roxy to vent her irritation about Goldstein), and annual columns about film-savvy teens rating their interest in Summer Movies based on trailer viewing.
Whether or not one liked Goldstein's opinions, he was certainly readable on a regular basis. But the LOS ANGELES TIMES is evolving in terms of entertainment/film coverage into TV-tabloid (sort of like this week's Tony Scott Danger Seeker article), fluffy, zippy-and-zingy, etc. And if Patrick Goldstein is nudged into taking a buyout (ending his TIMES career), it's safe to guess that Kenneth Turan (who's the 2012 equivalent of THE NEW YORK TIMES' Bosley Crowther circa 1967; i.e. Not Down With Contemporary Film Pop Culture) will be asked to walk the plank.
UPDATE 10:53 p.m.: Geoff Boucher, who wrote the "Hero Complex" column for the LOS ANGELES TIMES (focusing mainly on fanboy-favored Big Movies), is also being let go from the paper according to chatter on Twitter from various people in the film critic/reviewer communities.
Patrick Goldstein was a part of the LOS ANGELES TIMES for quite awhile; I first remember reading his rock-gossip "Pop Eye" column. And for the past dozen years, he was on the film Industry beat, writing "The Big Picture" column mixing "what directors and studios told me" anecdotes, Right-leaning salvos against Hollywood liberals (I remember singer/songwriter Nellie McKay taking a few minutes during a concert at Sunset Strip's Roxy to vent her irritation about Goldstein), and annual columns about film-savvy teens rating their interest in Summer Movies based on trailer viewing.
Whether or not one liked Goldstein's opinions, he was certainly readable on a regular basis. But the LOS ANGELES TIMES is evolving in terms of entertainment/film coverage into TV-tabloid (sort of like this week's Tony Scott Danger Seeker article), fluffy, zippy-and-zingy, etc. And if Patrick Goldstein is nudged into taking a buyout (ending his TIMES career), it's safe to guess that Kenneth Turan (who's the 2012 equivalent of THE NEW YORK TIMES' Bosley Crowther circa 1967; i.e. Not Down With Contemporary Film Pop Culture) will be asked to walk the plank.
UPDATE 10:53 p.m.: Geoff Boucher, who wrote the "Hero Complex" column for the LOS ANGELES TIMES (focusing mainly on fanboy-favored Big Movies), is also being let go from the paper according to chatter on Twitter from various people in the film critic/reviewer communities.
Friday, April 6, 2012
James Cameron vs. LATIMES film critic Kenneth Turan: the battle over perceptions of TITANIC.
LOS ANGELES TIMES film critic Kenneth Turan panned TITANIC upon its original release in 1997--which eventually led to Turan now being supplanted by Betsy Sharkey as critic/mainstream movie cheerleader.
Here's James Cameron's famous rant at Turan's expense--sent as a letter to the editor:
He's Mad as Hell at Turan
James Cameron Gets the Last Word on Our Critic's 'Titanic' Commentary
I have shrugged off Kenneth Turan's incessant rain of personal barbs
over the last few months, since he is clearly not a big enough man to
admit when he is wrong, and it has been amusing to watch him dig
himself into a deeper hole each time he tries to justify his
misanthropic sensibility with regard to "Titanic." But it's time to
speak up when Turan uses his bully pulpit not only to attack my film,
but the entire film industry and its audiences.
Turan says that "the flip side of 'Titanic's' ability to draw hordes
of viewers into the theaters is the question of where these viewers
have been for the past several years. In its unintentional underlining
of how narrow an audience net most movies cast over the American
public, 'Titanic' is not an example of Hollywood's success, it's an
emblem of its failure." It shows, he says, "how desperate the
mainstream audience . . . has become for anything even resembling
old-fashioned entertainment." They have, he says, been "deadened by
exposure to nonstop trash."
Having gone on record condemning "Titanic" as so bad "it almost makes
you weep in frustration," he is now desperate to account for the
phenomenon of its unprecedented global critical and commercial
success. To do so, he has settled on the outrageous conclusion that
since "Titanic" is garbage (because it has been spoken and so it must
be), then everything else around it--every other film in recent
years--must be worse garbage. With one sweeping statement he condemns
and dismisses the entire output of Hollywood.
Turan has tipped his hand. We now see his true heart. It's not that he
doesn't like some movies, as is a critic's prerogative. It's that he
doesn't like all movies. Simmering in his own bile, year after year,
he has become further and further removed from the simple joyful
experience of movie-watching, which, ironically, probably attracted
him to the job in the first place. The best critics keep that joy
alive, while the worst let their cynicism twist them beyond any
recognizable connection to the experience of a general audience in a
movie theater.
Turan sees himself as the high priest of some arcane art form that is
far too refined for the average individual to possibly appreciate. He
writes as if the insensitive masses must be constantly corrected, like
little children who do not have the sense or experience to know what
is good for them without the critic's patient instruction. This is
paternalism and elitism in its worst form, and utterly insults the
movie audience, which is theoretically his constituency.
Turan says I write "lowest common denominator screenplays that
condescend to their audience." The condescending one here is Turan,
who is insulting the majority of the filmgoing public by telling them
that they shouldn't like what they like.
"Titanic" is not a film that is sucking people in with flashy hype and
spitting them out onto the street feeling let down and ripped off.
They are returning again and again to repeat an experience that is
taking a 3-hour and 14-minute chunk out of their lives, and dragging
others with them, so they can share the emotion. Parents are taking
their kids, adults are taking their parents. People from 8 to 80
(literally) are connecting with this film. After 14 weeks in release,
"Titanic" is still No. 1 in France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Japan,
Mexico, Australia, the U.K. and almost every other country in which it
is playing. Audiences around the world are celebrating their own
essential humanity by going into a dark room and crying together.
The script for "Titanic" is earnest and straightforward, wearing its
heart on its sleeve. It intentionally incorporates universals of human
experience and emotion that are timeless--and familiar because they
reflect our basic emotional fabric. By dealing in archetypes, the film
touches people in all cultures and of all ages. Is this pandering? Or
is it communicating? Turan mistakes archetype for cliche. I don't
share his view that the best scripts are only the ones that explore
the perimeter of human experience, or flashily pirouette their witty
and cynical dialogue for our admiration.
He says that "Cameron is not someone to be trusted anywhere near a
word processor" and calls the "Titanic" screenplay "the worst script
ever written," carrying on as if this is an accepted fact, a "given"
upon which all his further arguments are then built. He conveniently
ignores the fact that the Writers Guild of America voted "Titanic" one
of the five best original scripts of the year with its nomination for
best screenplay written directly for the screen. There is no more
critical and discerning body in the world when it comes to
screenwriting. But in Turan's private reality, the vast majority of
the worldwide audience and the majority of Hollywood screenwriters are
wrong, and only he is right.
Turan's critical sensibility is the worst kind of ego-driven elitism.
The illustration accompanying the article says it all. One tiny figure
trying vainly to stop the juggernaut. But is that any sane person's
definition of the role of the critic--to stand alone in complete
opposition to the tide of popular taste?
Poor Kenny. He sees himself as the lone voice crying in the
wilderness, righteous but not heeded by the blind and dumb "great
unwashed" around him. It must be a great burden to be cursed with such
clear vision when your misguided flock bray past you, like lemmings,
unmindful.
Turan has forgotten, if he ever knew, the role of senior film critic
for a large urban newspaper. When people spend their hard-earned money
on a movie at the end of a long work week, all they ask is that their
local critic steer them toward the good ones and help them avoid the
turkeys. It's not too much to ask. And it's a fairly simple job, once
you grasp it. You get to go to a movie first, before anyone else, and
then come back and tell everybody about it. You even get to trash it
if you didn't like it. What you don't get to do is grind on and on,
month after month, after the audience has rendered its verdict in the
most resounding of terms, telling everybody why the filmgoers are
wrong and you are right.
Nobody's interested in the vitriolic ravings of a bitter man who
attacks and rips apart movies that the great majority of viewers find
well worth their time and money. Turan has lost touch with the joys of
film viewing as most people would define it. He has lost touch,
therefore, with his readership, and no longer serves a useful purpose.
When critics like Roger Ebert or Janet Maslin talk about film, they
demonstrate a deep knowledge of and respect for their subject, a
respect for filmmakers regardless of the specific blunders made on a
particular film, and a genuine unwavering joy at the magic of cinema.
Even when they don't like something of mine, I respect the source.
They make me want to try harder.
Give us a critic who actually likes movies. Give us a critic who has
at least some slight understanding of the toil and energy, the hopes
and dreams that go into a movie, any movie. Give us a critic who shows
respect for our chosen art, and whom we can respect in turn. And give
us one who respects the paying audiences who look to him or her for
guidance, not for lectures on how stupid they are for liking what they
like.
Forget about Clinton--how do we impeach Kenneth Turan?
JIM CAMERON
Santa Monica
Here's James Cameron's famous rant at Turan's expense--sent as a letter to the editor:
He's Mad as Hell at Turan
James Cameron Gets the Last Word on Our Critic's 'Titanic' Commentary
I have shrugged off Kenneth Turan's incessant rain of personal barbs
over the last few months, since he is clearly not a big enough man to
admit when he is wrong, and it has been amusing to watch him dig
himself into a deeper hole each time he tries to justify his
misanthropic sensibility with regard to "Titanic." But it's time to
speak up when Turan uses his bully pulpit not only to attack my film,
but the entire film industry and its audiences.
Turan says that "the flip side of 'Titanic's' ability to draw hordes
of viewers into the theaters is the question of where these viewers
have been for the past several years. In its unintentional underlining
of how narrow an audience net most movies cast over the American
public, 'Titanic' is not an example of Hollywood's success, it's an
emblem of its failure." It shows, he says, "how desperate the
mainstream audience . . . has become for anything even resembling
old-fashioned entertainment." They have, he says, been "deadened by
exposure to nonstop trash."
Having gone on record condemning "Titanic" as so bad "it almost makes
you weep in frustration," he is now desperate to account for the
phenomenon of its unprecedented global critical and commercial
success. To do so, he has settled on the outrageous conclusion that
since "Titanic" is garbage (because it has been spoken and so it must
be), then everything else around it--every other film in recent
years--must be worse garbage. With one sweeping statement he condemns
and dismisses the entire output of Hollywood.
Turan has tipped his hand. We now see his true heart. It's not that he
doesn't like some movies, as is a critic's prerogative. It's that he
doesn't like all movies. Simmering in his own bile, year after year,
he has become further and further removed from the simple joyful
experience of movie-watching, which, ironically, probably attracted
him to the job in the first place. The best critics keep that joy
alive, while the worst let their cynicism twist them beyond any
recognizable connection to the experience of a general audience in a
movie theater.
Turan sees himself as the high priest of some arcane art form that is
far too refined for the average individual to possibly appreciate. He
writes as if the insensitive masses must be constantly corrected, like
little children who do not have the sense or experience to know what
is good for them without the critic's patient instruction. This is
paternalism and elitism in its worst form, and utterly insults the
movie audience, which is theoretically his constituency.
Turan says I write "lowest common denominator screenplays that
condescend to their audience." The condescending one here is Turan,
who is insulting the majority of the filmgoing public by telling them
that they shouldn't like what they like.
"Titanic" is not a film that is sucking people in with flashy hype and
spitting them out onto the street feeling let down and ripped off.
They are returning again and again to repeat an experience that is
taking a 3-hour and 14-minute chunk out of their lives, and dragging
others with them, so they can share the emotion. Parents are taking
their kids, adults are taking their parents. People from 8 to 80
(literally) are connecting with this film. After 14 weeks in release,
"Titanic" is still No. 1 in France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Japan,
Mexico, Australia, the U.K. and almost every other country in which it
is playing. Audiences around the world are celebrating their own
essential humanity by going into a dark room and crying together.
The script for "Titanic" is earnest and straightforward, wearing its
heart on its sleeve. It intentionally incorporates universals of human
experience and emotion that are timeless--and familiar because they
reflect our basic emotional fabric. By dealing in archetypes, the film
touches people in all cultures and of all ages. Is this pandering? Or
is it communicating? Turan mistakes archetype for cliche. I don't
share his view that the best scripts are only the ones that explore
the perimeter of human experience, or flashily pirouette their witty
and cynical dialogue for our admiration.
He says that "Cameron is not someone to be trusted anywhere near a
word processor" and calls the "Titanic" screenplay "the worst script
ever written," carrying on as if this is an accepted fact, a "given"
upon which all his further arguments are then built. He conveniently
ignores the fact that the Writers Guild of America voted "Titanic" one
of the five best original scripts of the year with its nomination for
best screenplay written directly for the screen. There is no more
critical and discerning body in the world when it comes to
screenwriting. But in Turan's private reality, the vast majority of
the worldwide audience and the majority of Hollywood screenwriters are
wrong, and only he is right.
Turan's critical sensibility is the worst kind of ego-driven elitism.
The illustration accompanying the article says it all. One tiny figure
trying vainly to stop the juggernaut. But is that any sane person's
definition of the role of the critic--to stand alone in complete
opposition to the tide of popular taste?
Poor Kenny. He sees himself as the lone voice crying in the
wilderness, righteous but not heeded by the blind and dumb "great
unwashed" around him. It must be a great burden to be cursed with such
clear vision when your misguided flock bray past you, like lemmings,
unmindful.
Turan has forgotten, if he ever knew, the role of senior film critic
for a large urban newspaper. When people spend their hard-earned money
on a movie at the end of a long work week, all they ask is that their
local critic steer them toward the good ones and help them avoid the
turkeys. It's not too much to ask. And it's a fairly simple job, once
you grasp it. You get to go to a movie first, before anyone else, and
then come back and tell everybody about it. You even get to trash it
if you didn't like it. What you don't get to do is grind on and on,
month after month, after the audience has rendered its verdict in the
most resounding of terms, telling everybody why the filmgoers are
wrong and you are right.
Nobody's interested in the vitriolic ravings of a bitter man who
attacks and rips apart movies that the great majority of viewers find
well worth their time and money. Turan has lost touch with the joys of
film viewing as most people would define it. He has lost touch,
therefore, with his readership, and no longer serves a useful purpose.
When critics like Roger Ebert or Janet Maslin talk about film, they
demonstrate a deep knowledge of and respect for their subject, a
respect for filmmakers regardless of the specific blunders made on a
particular film, and a genuine unwavering joy at the magic of cinema.
Even when they don't like something of mine, I respect the source.
They make me want to try harder.
Give us a critic who actually likes movies. Give us a critic who has
at least some slight understanding of the toil and energy, the hopes
and dreams that go into a movie, any movie. Give us a critic who shows
respect for our chosen art, and whom we can respect in turn. And give
us one who respects the paying audiences who look to him or her for
guidance, not for lectures on how stupid they are for liking what they
like.
Forget about Clinton--how do we impeach Kenneth Turan?
JIM CAMERON
Santa Monica
Sunday, February 5, 2012
New low for THE LOS ANGELES TIMES Sunday magazine: wet kiss article about blacklist-era ogre Roy Brewer in today's Oscar issue.
Article by John Meroney, who has goo-gooed over the Roy Brewer/Ronald Reagan connection in the past (namely NATIONAL REVIEW). Essentially Brewer (plus actor/John Ford regular Ward Bond) was the person Hollywood actors/writers/directors had to beg and plead with to show they weren't Communists and could they work again, please.
http://www.latimesmagazine.com/2012/02/left-in-the-past.html
http://www.latimesmagazine.com/2012/02/left-in-the-past.html
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
New poem HERDING OCCUPY L.A. OUT OF SIGHT OUT OF MIND BLUES
(for poet Scott Wannberg and his Canine of Truth Sparky)
get along little protesters
get out of the street
get onto the sidewalk
fold your banners
and pack up your tents
because you're making
THE LOS ANGELES TIMES
and television journalists mad as Heck
now the hounds are baying for Charlie Beck
to tear off his peaceful-interaction
make-them-disappear-by-attrition mask
and emerge as the Incredible Two-Headed Hybrid
of Darryl Gates and Ed Davis
crying havoc
and unleashing the tasers and batons
get along little protesters
business must do whatever it wants
we're not going to listen to you Occupy people
since our city is not a city of "the people"
but a city of, by and for
the Very Important People
of AEG
WE NEED A NEW FOOTBALL STADIUM!
get along little protesters
go play with the other weird fuzzy-haired,
fuzzy-brained hippie kids
in Occupy Orange County
or Occupy Long Beach
or wherever you can be more easily ignored
by the state, nation and world
go away little protesters
go home and eat low-fat granola
drink your soy lattes
watch your Noam Chomsky videos
and let us govern,
while the silent majority occupies sidewalks
outside theaters and big-box stores
we love the silent majority
they know to SHUT UP AND CONSUME
and take what they're given
no matter how bad it is now
or how much worse it will be
we'll be glad when
everyone forgets all about
this trouble-stirring business-unfriendly
nonsense of Occupying public space
that we'll always find reasons
to throw you out of
once we're tired of your madness
.
get along little protesters
get out of the street
get onto the sidewalk
fold your banners
and pack up your tents
because you're making
THE LOS ANGELES TIMES
and television journalists mad as Heck
now the hounds are baying for Charlie Beck
to tear off his peaceful-interaction
make-them-disappear-by-attrition mask
and emerge as the Incredible Two-Headed Hybrid
of Darryl Gates and Ed Davis
crying havoc
and unleashing the tasers and batons
get along little protesters
business must do whatever it wants
we're not going to listen to you Occupy people
since our city is not a city of "the people"
but a city of, by and for
the Very Important People
of AEG
WE NEED A NEW FOOTBALL STADIUM!
get along little protesters
go play with the other weird fuzzy-haired,
fuzzy-brained hippie kids
in Occupy Orange County
or Occupy Long Beach
or wherever you can be more easily ignored
by the state, nation and world
go away little protesters
go home and eat low-fat granola
drink your soy lattes
watch your Noam Chomsky videos
and let us govern,
while the silent majority occupies sidewalks
outside theaters and big-box stores
we love the silent majority
they know to SHUT UP AND CONSUME
and take what they're given
no matter how bad it is now
or how much worse it will be
we'll be glad when
everyone forgets all about
this trouble-stirring business-unfriendly
nonsense of Occupying public space
that we'll always find reasons
to throw you out of
once we're tired of your madness
.
Sunday, November 13, 2011
THE LOS ANGELES TIMES and its Calendar section have a problem with wanting censorship of adult TV series.
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/tv/la-ca-tv-violence-20111113,0,6941140.story
At the LOS ANGELES TIMES, it seems like the paper's Calendar (entertainment) section has a certain preference, no matter who happens to be running the section.
If you disapprove of certain kinds of entertainment/entertainers, yes, you can get a big think-piece article in
Calendar. Around 1999, Eric Harris had a shining-star moment with a "STAR WARS is racist" story capitalizing on the controversial Jar Jar Binks character in THE PHANTOM MENACE. More recently, Mary McNamara took the vapors over too much "gratuitous" nudity in HBO series, including BOARDWALK EMPIRE (singled out for "savage violence" by Greg Braxton in the article linked to above): http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jul/03/entertainment/la-ca-hbo-breasts-20110703.
Poor naive, stupid me: I believe that implicit/explicit calls to "clean up TV" should have died years ago.
If viewers want to watch "gratuitous savage" television programming intended for adult audiences, then it should be their privilege--a privilege that Greg Braxton and Mary McNamara have no business in writing faux-morality tch-tch, cluck-cluck articles to discourage (as well as implicitly encouraging government/FCC to become a 21st-century Hays Office).
At the LOS ANGELES TIMES, it seems like the paper's Calendar (entertainment) section has a certain preference, no matter who happens to be running the section.
If you disapprove of certain kinds of entertainment/entertainers, yes, you can get a big think-piece article in
Calendar. Around 1999, Eric Harris had a shining-star moment with a "STAR WARS is racist" story capitalizing on the controversial Jar Jar Binks character in THE PHANTOM MENACE. More recently, Mary McNamara took the vapors over too much "gratuitous" nudity in HBO series, including BOARDWALK EMPIRE (singled out for "savage violence" by Greg Braxton in the article linked to above): http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jul/03/entertainment/la-ca-hbo-breasts-20110703.
Poor naive, stupid me: I believe that implicit/explicit calls to "clean up TV" should have died years ago.
If viewers want to watch "gratuitous savage" television programming intended for adult audiences, then it should be their privilege--a privilege that Greg Braxton and Mary McNamara have no business in writing faux-morality tch-tch, cluck-cluck articles to discourage (as well as implicitly encouraging government/FCC to become a 21st-century Hays Office).
Sunday, March 28, 2010
James Rainey on L.A.'s Pacifica station KPFK also passes as a comment on local poetry.
THE LOS ANGELES TIMES' media critic James Rainey had a column in yesterday's CALENDAR section; the column was essentially a moan about why KPFK-FM, the leftist Pacifica station, isn't capable of becoming more disciplined and safe-left like National Public Radio.
Here's a paragraph from that article, describing a split in the local KPFK board (highlighting by me):
"What remained was an elected board divided between two groups that I'll call the Liberal Pragmatists, who crave predictability, professionalism and bigger audiences, and the Ecumenical Fundamentalists, who want every subgroup given voice with public-access TV style purity."
With the exception of "bigger audiences" (something that local poetry doesn't really want due to fear of "the wrong people" attending/taking part), Rainey's statement can be taken out of its original context to describe local poetry.
Except that I'd use "Literary Poetry Fundamentalists" to substitute for "Liberal Pragmatists" and "Ecumenical Community Reading Amateurs" substituting for "Ecumenical Fundamentalists."
Here's a paragraph from that article, describing a split in the local KPFK board (highlighting by me):
"What remained was an elected board divided between two groups that I'll call the Liberal Pragmatists, who crave predictability, professionalism and bigger audiences, and the Ecumenical Fundamentalists, who want every subgroup given voice with public-access TV style purity."
With the exception of "bigger audiences" (something that local poetry doesn't really want due to fear of "the wrong people" attending/taking part), Rainey's statement can be taken out of its original context to describe local poetry.
Except that I'd use "Literary Poetry Fundamentalists" to substitute for "Liberal Pragmatists" and "Ecumenical Community Reading Amateurs" substituting for "Ecumenical Fundamentalists."
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
LA TIMES sports crank Bill Plaschke on Lindsey Jacobellis.
There's a lot of times I don't agree with veteran LOS ANGELES TIMES sportswriter Bill Plaschke (a rare instance of a column of his I liked was about the recent efforts to blame the young Georgian luge contestant for his tragic death), and this conniption fit about Lindsey Jacobellis (which comes down to Plaschke being miffed that Jacobellis, having lost a second chance at Olympic Gold, didn't want to meet the press IMMEDIATELY afterwards) is one of those times:
http://www.latimes.com/sports/olympics/la-sp-olympics-plaschke17-2010feb17,0,2895259.column
Here's an especially barbed remark from Bill re Lindsey (highlighting by me):
"In its 12th year at the Olympics, snowboarding continues to grow in ways we never imagined. It is now officially a bratty kid who is convinced we will never understand it."Seriously, mainstream media just doesn't get it sometimes," said Nate Holland, another Olympic snowboard cross racer. "It's not always about winning. It's about fun, style, showing your stuff."But once every four years, the sport is put under a national spotlight and judged like all other American sports, by standings and a scoreboard. The boarders may not like that harsher glare, but they certainly don't have any trouble cashing checks from sponsors who do."
http://www.latimes.com/sports/olympics/la-sp-olympics-plaschke17-2010feb17,0,2895259.column
Here's an especially barbed remark from Bill re Lindsey (highlighting by me):
"In its 12th year at the Olympics, snowboarding continues to grow in ways we never imagined. It is now officially a bratty kid who is convinced we will never understand it."Seriously, mainstream media just doesn't get it sometimes," said Nate Holland, another Olympic snowboard cross racer. "It's not always about winning. It's about fun, style, showing your stuff."But once every four years, the sport is put under a national spotlight and judged like all other American sports, by standings and a scoreboard. The boarders may not like that harsher glare, but they certainly don't have any trouble cashing checks from sponsors who do."
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Time for the Tribune monolith to let the LOS ANGELES TIMES go.
More cut-cut-cutting going on today at THE LOS ANGELES TIMES--starting with Tina Daunt, who wrote a periodic column for Calendar about celeb activism: http://www.laobserved.com/archive/2009/10/layoffs_begin_at_lat.php
The same will be happening on the Other Coast to THE NEW YORK TIMES.
Perhaps someone should explain to me why stockholders and corporate executives these days still believe they must demand such a high profit/return as their product deteriorates in quality and the demand for it decreases.
The same will be happening on the Other Coast to THE NEW YORK TIMES.
Perhaps someone should explain to me why stockholders and corporate executives these days still believe they must demand such a high profit/return as their product deteriorates in quality and the demand for it decreases.
Sunday, July 5, 2009
Another low for LA TIMES critic/cheerleader Betsy Sharkey.
No doubt Betsy Sharkey's a dream-come-true for THE LOS ANGELES TIMES in that she's willing to do the at-one-with-blockbusters cheerleading that mostly-fuddy-duddy Kenneth Turan can't lower himself to accomplish.
But this article of Ms. Sharkey's in today's edition is rather disgraceful pandering:
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-ca-heroes5-2009jul05,0,2815935.story
And it makes me miss Ms. Sharkey's immediate predecessor, Carina Chocano (who had her flaws, but at least a bit more integrity)--plus the critics long departed from the TIMES' pages (Michael Wilmington, Sheila Benson, Charles Champlin, Peter Rainer, Manohla Dargis).
But this article of Ms. Sharkey's in today's edition is rather disgraceful pandering:
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-ca-heroes5-2009jul05,0,2815935.story
And it makes me miss Ms. Sharkey's immediate predecessor, Carina Chocano (who had her flaws, but at least a bit more integrity)--plus the critics long departed from the TIMES' pages (Michael Wilmington, Sheila Benson, Charles Champlin, Peter Rainer, Manohla Dargis).
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
LA OBSERVED on changes in THE LOS ANGELES TIMES.
Starting next week, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES will be altered in response to less advertising revenue and pressure to keep cutting costs.
For more complete information, including the paper's spin on the forthcoming changes:
http://www.laobserved.com/archive/2009/02/how_the_californialess_la.php
A column T.J. Sullivan wrote for LA OBSERVED about the importance of print newspapers:
http://www.laobserved.com/intell/2009/02/are_newspaper_journalists_to_b.php
[UPDATE 2/26/09: The Denver, Colorado ROCKY MOUNTAIN NEWS will cease publication as of tomorrow: http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2009/feb/26/rocky-mountain-news-closes-friday-final-edition/]
Allegedly, Rupert Murdoch is showing some interest in buying THE LOS ANGELES TIMES.
At this point, you, the reader, can insert a punchline about tabloid journalism, the potential for uncritical reviews of Fox Network programming and/or 20th Century Fox movies, or the possibility of Los Angeles mainstream journalism standards being lowered to those of THE NEW YORK POST (remembering the racist editorial cartoon implying a connection between President Obama and a murdered chimpanzee).
For more complete information, including the paper's spin on the forthcoming changes:
http://www.laobserved.com/archive/2009/02/how_the_californialess_la.php
A column T.J. Sullivan wrote for LA OBSERVED about the importance of print newspapers:
http://www.laobserved.com/intell/2009/02/are_newspaper_journalists_to_b.php
[UPDATE 2/26/09: The Denver, Colorado ROCKY MOUNTAIN NEWS will cease publication as of tomorrow: http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2009/feb/26/rocky-mountain-news-closes-friday-final-edition/]
Allegedly, Rupert Murdoch is showing some interest in buying THE LOS ANGELES TIMES.
At this point, you, the reader, can insert a punchline about tabloid journalism, the potential for uncritical reviews of Fox Network programming and/or 20th Century Fox movies, or the possibility of Los Angeles mainstream journalism standards being lowered to those of THE NEW YORK POST (remembering the racist editorial cartoon implying a connection between President Obama and a murdered chimpanzee).
Friday, January 30, 2009
Geoff Boucher's stupid LA TIMES article on Paul McCartney at Coachella.
Don't ask me how Geoff Boucher's dumb, condescending "is Paul McCartney hip enough for the Coachella music festival" article made the below-the-fold on the front page of today's print edition of THE LOS ANGELES TIMES.
But, in case you haven't read it, here it is: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/music_blog/2009/01/paul-mccartney.html#comments
For some balance, here's Ann Powers' take:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/music_blog/2009/01/if-you-need-pro.html
But, in case you haven't read it, here it is: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/music_blog/2009/01/paul-mccartney.html#comments
For some balance, here's Ann Powers' take:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/music_blog/2009/01/if-you-need-pro.html
Monday, November 10, 2008
Repurposing film critics' reviews: not just for alternaweeklies.
Kevin Roderick of the site LA OBSERVED makes a note of Carina Chocano's recent departure from THE LOS ANGELES TIMES in favor of Tribune majordomos using reviews from THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE's Michael Phillips [who departed with Richard Roeper from Disney's AT THE MOVIES a few months back]: http://www.laobserved.com/archive/2008/11/carina_chocanos_replaceme.php
Of course, this isn't a brand-new phenomenon. Since Michael Lacey swallowed up a lot of alternaweeklies into his empire, readers of the not-what-it-once-was LA WEEKLY can occasionally read reviews from J. Hoberman (THE VILLAGE VOICE) and Robert Wilonsky (DALLAS OBSERVER).
Way cheaper than hiring new critics or even free-lancers who don't qualify for benefits.
Of course, this isn't a brand-new phenomenon. Since Michael Lacey swallowed up a lot of alternaweeklies into his empire, readers of the not-what-it-once-was LA WEEKLY can occasionally read reviews from J. Hoberman (THE VILLAGE VOICE) and Robert Wilonsky (DALLAS OBSERVER).
Way cheaper than hiring new critics or even free-lancers who don't qualify for benefits.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
John McCain: When all else fails, channel the ghost of Joseph McCarthy.
Desperate to hang onto "the base", John McCain smears both Barack Obama and THE LOS ANGELES TIMES: http://news.aol.com/elections/article/los-angeles-times-obama-khalidi-tape/230765?icid=200100397x1212447352x1200793185
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
McCain/Obama: When campaign reporters get too embedded in campaigns.
Here's a link to Glenn Greenwald's latest SALON column about Maeve Reston of THE LOS ANGELES TIMES bemoaning the winds of change in the relationships between John McCain and stenographer journalists on the Straight Talk Express: http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/10/29/reston/
And, correspondingly, here's a link to a LA TIMES article by Peter Nicholas about the Obama campaign where the author complains about Obama being too guarded and not chummy enough with the boys and girls of the press:http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-peter28-2008oct28,0,6187999.story
And, correspondingly, here's a link to a LA TIMES article by Peter Nicholas about the Obama campaign where the author complains about Obama being too guarded and not chummy enough with the boys and girls of the press:http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-peter28-2008oct28,0,6187999.story
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)