Attacks Against David Geffen in Slate Are Highly Suspicious

Ever since Michael Kinsley was properly dismissed from his post as editorial pages editor of the L.A. Times, a position in which he had quickly established himself as highly confused at best, he has been on a veritable tear against the Times, and newspapers in general.

Kinsley has written a number of venomous articles in Time magazine and elsewhere making suggestions that newspapers are outdated, and has persistently been very negative about his Times experience. Of course, he was entirely responsible for his own failures at the Times, but he blames it all on Jeff Johnson, the Times publisher who terminated him, and other Tribune Co. executives. (Getting rid of Kinsley was one of the few actions by Tribune which I wholeheartedly favored).

Kinsley, whose wife is a top executive of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, was once editor of Microsoft's Slate magazine, and he presumably retains influence there. I say that, because Slate has also lent itself to a number of articles that parrot Kinsley's views.

Now, last week, we see an article by Kim Masters in Slate that declares entertainment mogul David Geffen to be an unsuitable future owner of the L.A. Times.

I am highly suspicious of the authenticity of the charges made against Geffen, such as that he would be a temperamental and dictatorial publisher on the order of Wendy McCaw at the Santa Barbara News Press. And I even think Kevin Roderick made a mistake in L.A. Observed to give so much space to Master's article, which is attributed to "multiple sources" which, not surprisingly, are not named.

Geffen recently made a $2 billion cash-only offer to buy the L.A. Times, and of all the people who have come forward to express an interest in saving the paper from further depredations at the hands of the Tribune Co., he appears to be one of the most serious.

So, it's not surprising to me that Masters and Slate, are out after him. They seek to follow Kinsley in balling up the works at the Times and spoiling its future as one of the nation's great newspapers.

If someone has something against Geffen, let them come out under their own names and make their charges publicly. In the meantime, we ought to ignore anything written or influenced by Kinsley, who recently took a job with the anti-American British paper, the Guardian, and shows signs of going further and further off the deep end.

The LAT Opinion Section Goes Downhill Under Michael Kinsley

Under the inept, unqualified Michael Kinsley, the Los Angeles Times Opinion section has hit the skids, going way way downhill very fast. There's only one word for it these days: Terrible.

For some simpleminded reason, Kinsley seems to think the readers want cartoons on Page 1 of Opinion, where they have not been before. And then there are more cartoons inside. There are fewer articles, and they are for the most part less distinguished.

It's a microcosm of what Tribune Co. ownership has meant for the Times. It's in many ways a weaker newspaper that does not take Los Angeles seriously. It is down several hundred thousand in daily circulation in five years. Its TV guide is slimmer, as is its Sports and Business sections. Its Outdoor section is a joke. Only section A has maintained its quality. Even the California section is too filled with regional news as compared with state and local news.

But nothing in the new Times is as lousy as Kinsley. And we see it in the lead editorial today, on the Los Angeles mayor's race. It is very disappointing. Far from the endorsement of a mayoral candidate that the Times should be moving toward, it basically just says there are a few candidates and it makes rather inane remarks about them. It calls for more interest in the election and makes the point that the interest is higher in New York in their municipal election. It does not promise there will ever be an endorsement here, just as in the presidential contest there was no endorsement.

Los Angeles citizens do not want to see a Los Angeles newspaper compare this city unfavorably with New York. The great preponderant majority here does not envy New York and would not want to live there. Such remarks reflect the dismissive view of Los Angeles taken by the strangers who have assumed control over the newspaper.

Today, meanwhile, is election day in Iraq, a hopeful step toward democracy that more than 1,400 American soldiers and dozens of American civilians have given their lives to help the Iraqi people make. There is an article about democracy in general in Opinion today by the able Walter Russell Mead, there's a primer right below it, and there's an article by the cutesy, usually meaningless editorial writer Andrew Malcolm, who at least can engender a nice turn of phrase occasionally.

But there is no editorial today on the Iraqi election. In the whole run-up toward the election, in the sacrifices being made in Iraq by our fellow-citizens, Kinsley has been running the other way. He should run back to Washington state, where he lives half the time and votes. We do not need him running the Times editorial page.

L.A. Times Editorial Page Ends Year with More Whining

The Los Angeles Times editorial pages, after being completely overwhelmed by the New York Times editorials and op-ed page articles on the tsunami disaster, ends the year this morning (Dec. 31), as one might expect, with another whining editorial on the results of the Presidential election. Let me say it clearly: It is time to send Michael Kinsley packing. In the editorial, "The Year of Karl Rove," once again the Editorial Page is jumping all over the Bush reelection campaign without mentioning that the L.A. Times did not even have the courage to endorse a candidate in that campaign. Of course, we do not know if Kinsley wrote the editorial. Judging from his weekly column, he can't write. But he is responsible for what appears on the page. I'm going to uncharitably assume therefore that in blaming the results of the California legislative elections, with no partisan change in a single seat, also on Rove and the Bush Administration, Kinsley is totally ignorant of the redistricting process in California. He apparently doesn't realize that the Democrat, Mike Berman, drew the redistricting lines, as he has for many years. It is shocking to Kinsley and company that Rove and the Bush Administration stood for something in the recently-concluded campaign, "disregarding the textbook notion that successful presidential candidates need to relentlessly tack toward the center." Kinsley and his ilk should accept some of the blame themselves for the Bush victory, since their screeching got many people's backs up and helped solidify the President's support. Even with the screeching, however, Kinsley, still didn't have the courage to support Sen. Kerry, which most of those doing the screeching did. Kinsley should be dismissed -- and without delay for the good of the newspaper. Happy New Year!

Braggadocio On The LAT Editorial Page

The lead editorial on today's (Dec. 21) Los Angeles Times editorial page begins:

"We like to think we're pretty gutsy on this page. We say what we think, we don't mince words, and darn the consequences."

This from the editorial page that spent much of the last four years blasting President George W. Bush and then did not have the courage to endorse his opponent in the 2004 Presidential campaign.

Courageous, no. Hypocritical, yes. And also silly to make such ridiculous claims in broad daylight.