L.A. Times Hit Piece on Jill Stewart: L.A. Weekly Staff Writer Responds
L.A. Times media critic James Rainey today slams Jill Stewart and the L.A. Weekly, but neglects to tell you why he might be so upset — namely, they questioned his own journalism style a while back. In this post I explain why, show how Rainey contacted only anti-Stewart sources — and publish a reaction from a staff writer who works for Stewart and disagrees with Rainey.
Rainey labels my friend Jill “bombastic” and takes some shots at staff writer Patrick Range McDonald — although Rainey’s shots are sometimes fairly garbled. For example, Rainey tells us that a McDonald-penned piece on Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa “employed more semantic spin than Kobe Bryant puts on a jump shot.” Well, gee. I didn’t know Kobe put any semantic spin on a jump shot. I guess you learn something new every day.
I doubt it’s coincidence that Rainey contacted only sources who slam Stewart. Calling Jill “highly ideological” is the highly ideological Marc Cooper. An unnamed writer says Stewart supports “gotcha, pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey journalism.” (The writer doesn’t want to be quoted because — get this! — he still wants to be able to work for Jill! Will pin the tail on the donkey for cash!) Rainey also unsuccessfully tries to get a quote from Laurie Ochoa, who is thought to be anti-Stewart.
Who didn’t Rainey try to contact? I’ll tell you who: Jill Stewart or Patrick Range McDonald. As Jill says:
I wanted to tell my colleagues and friends in journalism and blogging that James Rainey of the Los Angeles Times did not contact me for his take-down attempt column about me today, published during the very same week in which news-side stories I assigned and edited blew the Times out of the water at the Los Angeles Press Club awards. These awards, announced five days ago, were judged entirely by journalists in other major cities around the nation to avoid local favoritism. And then yesterday, a young reporter who won a major award for a piece that I assigned and edited beat The New York Times and was in Washington, D.C., collecting his award.
It’s hard to imagine that James wrote this attack without being bothered by a piece we at the Weekly wrote about James and his frequent use of blind sources while covering his bosses. I am the editor who assigned and edited the piece about James Rainey by Luke Y. Thompson. Luke’s report on Jim was a classic Weekly story, assigned and edited by me, tough but factual, and filled with excellent sourcing.
There’s much more to Jill’s response, which she sent around this morning by e-mail (while I was still at work). It’s now up at the L.A. Weekly, so you should read the whole thing here.
I decided to add value by seeing if Rainey had tried to contact McDonald either. I had an idea that he hadn’t . . . and I was right. Here’s what McDonald sent me:
The Rainey/LA Times piece is unfortunate, especially the take down of Jill Stewart. I actually think the LA Times, Marc Cooper, and others have no idea what to make of the L.A. Weekly’s brand of journalism, which is very aggressive and distinctly non-ideological. In fact, Jill and I are always making sure we stay free of left or right-wing ideology…because we believe it can interfere with the search for some kind of larger truth.
For example, if you’re a left-wing, pro-union writer, you probably won’t write about how some union is screwing over its members. You’ll be afraid of making the labor movement as a whole look bad, and you’ll avoid telling the unvarnished truth, contribute to the bad treatment of those union members, and practice, in my book, bad journalism.
From Day One, in May, 2007, I came into this job thinking that ideology must be avoided in my writing. Jill never pushed that line of thought on me. And she has never pushed her own politics on me, and I’ve never pushed them on her–and I’m an out gay man with liberal sympathies.
Also, many of the stories I wrote did not come from Jill but from my own brain and interests. My Prop. 8 coverage, which won an honorable mention at the LA Press Club awards, started because the issue is important to me, and Jill let me run with it.
I had also been wanting to write a piece about Villaraigosa for months, especially because many reporters were vaguely writing about or hinting at the mayor’s poor work ethic, but no one actually checked it out for sure and nailed it down.
When I got his schedule, saw some amazing stuff that no one else had written about, and told Jill about it, she again let me run with it. That piece won a second place award from the LA Press Club. I was also only one of four LA-area journalists nominated for the LA Press Club “journalist of the year” award. And I know that a similar process takes place with Christine Pelisek, who won several first place awards from the LA Press Club.
I think the way these stories were developed also prove that Jill is not, in any way, pushing her own political agenda.
But we work hard, we rock the boat hard, and it was only a matter of time that someone pushed back. Comes with the territory. I’ll read Rainey’s piece again to see if I can learn anything from it, anything that may be valid and I need to be aware of. I didn’t see that on the first read, though.
In my mind, the fact that someone in the Times is writing that piece obviously shows we are making the right people nervous and doing the right kind of journalism. Despite the problems I have with the piece, the article is a weird kind of compliment.
Lastly, what’s very odd about the piece is that Rainey seemed to be trying to give us a taste of our own medicine, which is fine with me. But we always try to give people the opportunity to explain their sides of things. I met with Chief Bratton, for example, and talked with him for 45 minutes. I also talked and met with other high-ranking folks at the LAPD to understand what they were doing with their crime stats. With Villaraigosa, I tried to talk with mayor about his work schedule and only got as far as his spokesman, Matt Szabo. Rainey never contacted me, and, from what I understand, he never contacted Jill Stewart. Rainey, as a result, practiced the kind of “hit piece” journalism he so earnestly complains about.
McDonald added:
I’ve been a journalist since 1992. I’ve worked for a lot of different editors at a lot of different papers and magazines, including the Village Voice in the mid-1990s as a research intern, where I also had a couple of pieces published. Jill is tied with only one other person as the most supportive, dedicated, and intelligent editor I’ve ever worked with. It’s a pure delight to work for her.
I tried contacting Luke Thompson, who wrote the piece on Rainey for the Weekly. If he responds, I’ll publish what he has to say. He’s also a reader here, so you may end up seeing a comment from him. (Marc Cooper has been known to show up in the comments too.)
I’m sending an e-mail to Rainey as well, and I’ll publish any response of his here.
That’s how it’s done, by the way, Mr. Rainey. You give the other guy a chance to respond, and give his (or her) comments full and fair prominence. Heck, I know that — and I’m not even a “professional journalist”!
UPDATE: Stewart appears in the comments below, here. Marc Cooper also appears in the comments below.
UPDATE x2: Luke Y. Thompson replies here. I show how Rainey violated the paper’s policy on the use of anonymous sources here.
Patterico, I send some shouts-out to Luke (who usually goes by LYT when he posts here) via his blog, Facebook, and with a direct e-mail. Hope these help (and aren’t too duplicative of your own efforts). š
qdpsteve (5eb540) — 6/19/2009 @ 11:39 pmWell, gee. I didnāt know Kobe put any semantic spin on a jump shot. I guess you learn something new every day.
I think that’s what his underbite grimace consists of.
Another Chris (a3bb8f) — 6/19/2009 @ 11:50 pmFar too often these days, the term “professional journalist” sounds like a contradiction in terms (to quote Rocket J. Squirrel).
There are some exceptions, of course. But this fellow Rainey seems to be the poster child for hypocrisy.
Eric Blair (5a226d) — 6/19/2009 @ 11:53 pmOne of my favorite all-time scenes is from Godfather II where the contract killer testifies before the congressional committee, “Yeah, the family had lots of buffahs (buffers).”
The LAT has lots of “layahs” (layers), eh?
Ed from SFV (dde255) — 6/19/2009 @ 11:54 pmthe LA Weekly is the paper the LA Times wishes it could be: hard hitting, timely, germane, accurate, and still relentlessly leftist……
not to mention all the dope and sex ads generating a positive cash flow.
redc1c4 (fb8750) — 6/20/2009 @ 12:02 amI’d be more outraged by this typical slimy effort from the Los Angeles/Pyongyang Times, but I remember Jill Stewart well from my time living in Southern California, and I have no doubt at all that she will retaliate with grim, yet gleeful efficiency. I look forward to snickering at the carnage inflicted on the sinking ship in the process.
M. Scott Eiland (5ccff0) — 6/20/2009 @ 12:11 amEven without the backstory, that Rainey piece read like a junior-high snarkfest. And just as reliable. Christ, I miss the Herald Examiner.
Californio (6657ce) — 6/20/2009 @ 12:45 amOh, and Helms Bakery trucks too.
Californio (6657ce) — 6/20/2009 @ 12:46 amPat, you may still be using my old new times email, which no longer works.
E-me LYT at lytrules dot com, and I’ll do my best to answer anything you might ask.
LYT (cf1265) — 6/20/2009 @ 1:03 amWait…just saw you Facebook-messaged me. I’ll respond there when I get a moment.
LYT (cf1265) — 6/20/2009 @ 1:05 amPatrick,
Out of courtesy to you I will acknowledge that I read the post above. Jim Rainey can speak for himself.
I will say that folks who live in glass houses… well, you know the rest. Both Stewart and Patrick McDonald are masters of one-sided, skewed reporting… so it is sort of amusing to watch them gag on a spoonful of their own elixir. Stewart has bult her entire career, or what is left of it, precisely by burping toxic, knee-cappers that have NO pretense of being even-handed. Should Rainey have called them? I dunno. Who really cares anyway? The Weekly has faded into total obscurity.
I actually think that Rainey let them off easy and did only a mediocre job of describing the mediocrity of the Weekly.
While we’re on the subject… when McDonald wrote his laughable piece on Bill Bratton I was tempted to email the young fella (whom I’ve never met) and advise him that he, in fact, was making a big career mistake in becoming Jill Stewart’s attack chihuahua and mouthpiece. But I thought doing so would be a tad patronizing and that it was none of my business. But now that the kid has introduced my name into testimony I think it only fair (to him) to issue that unsolicited advice.
I have included his Bratton piece, by the way, in the required reading I will be assigning in my grad reporting class next fall. It will be contrasted with other reporters’ work as an example of how NOT to write a story. It’s a great example and I thank him for providing it, albeit unwittingly.
Just as a P.S. I have never made a secret of my political point of view, but I would dare such simpletons as McDonald to accurately classify what precise dogma it is to which I subscribe. I’m certainly to the left of the Patterico center of gravity but anyone who knows my work knows I have not hesitated from,, at times, laying down some pretty heavy fire on lefty icons and causes… ranging from unions to liberals to the anti-war movement to such buffons as Chavez and Castro. I will be happy to compare that record to the cheap, faux populism of Stewart-McDonald.
Now, back to the real world. Like the showdown in Iran… a topic that is banned from the current Weekly as it does not fit the cookie-cutter editorial formula of the half-wits who run the company.
Marc Cooper (1a18bb) — 6/20/2009 @ 1:42 amthe fact that someone in the Times is writing that piece obviously shows we are making the right people nervous and doing the right kind of journalism.
Actually, what it shows is that the weekly is making the left kind of people nervous – hence the backlash.
Democrats control this city, and much of this state. The only right kind of people for journalists to make nervous are those with influence and power, and thus there is no right kind of journalism. It’s either journalism or it’s politically favored propaganda, and the claim that political bias has no influence on the field of journalism is debunked daily on the pages of most newspapers and in the broadcasts of most television news, albeit without their realization.
That the LA Weekly practices actual journalism is rare and shocking. You would think the other supposed ‘journalists’ would take notice of this sad fact rather than attempt to attack them, but propagandists lost in their own lies don’t seem to notice anything.
Patterico once again does a great service illuminating the pushing of propaganda as journalism.
Apogee (e2dc9b) — 6/20/2009 @ 1:46 amApogee hit all the high points. %-)
redc1c4 (fb8750) — 6/20/2009 @ 1:52 amP.S.
I neglected to mention that bouquet of well-deserved awards gathered up this week by L.A. Weekly staff writer Christine Pellisek. Yes, Jill Stewart edited those stories. But Christine was formed, mentored and forged as a reporter by none other than Alan Mittelstaedt, the news editor of the Weekly’s ancien regime. For absolutely no good reason whatsoever, Mittelstaedt was fired three years ago by the corporate goons who run the Weekly and was replaced, over Ochoa’s head by Jill Stewart! When Alan was news editor, Pellisek was languishing as an unrecognized and undrpaid editorial asst. It was Alan and Laurie Ochoa who realized her untapped talent, promoted her to staff writer, and heaped upon her the encouragement, skill and support of Mittelstaedt. In short, the very best the Weekly currently has is precisely what was built up by and formed by the OLD Weekly. When McDonald can report half as well as Christine, he might win half as many awards.
I must also add that McDonald and Stewart claiming to be non-ideological is what makes them so ridiculous. Stewart was burrowed so far up the anatomy of, respectively, Dick Riordan and The Governator, thjat you’d need to send out a search party to find her. At least be honest about this (And by the way.. I voted for Arnold and I endorsed Riordan in his run for Governor way back when).
Marc Cooper (1a18bb) — 6/20/2009 @ 1:53 amMarc Cooper – Should Rainey have called them? I dunno. Who really cares anyway?
Apparently you do. Enough to comment at 1:42am. And it’s understandable, seeing how someone else is making comments about you and your profession.
You write:
“anyone who knows my work knows I have not hesitated from,, at times, laying down some pretty heavy fire on lefty icons and causesā¦ ranging from unions to liberals to the anti-war movement to such buffons as Chavez and Castro.”
I don’t know whether your work has been digitized, but I’d love to read it, especially since you specifically bring it up seemingly as a rebuttal. You should link to it.
Apogee (e2dc9b) — 6/20/2009 @ 2:12 amLA Times vs. LA Weekly- Any chance these two losers can fight to the death (of both of them)?
joe (879eed) — 6/20/2009 @ 3:47 amDon’t care much for the LA Weekly per se, but Jill Stewart is a godsend, and to the extent the Weekly gives her a regular platform I hope they keep their doors open for many more years. In an average year, single handedly writes twice as many in depth local political stories (read: stories that go beyond city hall’s press conferences and/or press releases)as every single writer at the LAT combined. It truely is embarrassing how poorly the LAT covers Los Angeles news — hell KFI’s John & Ken (who the LAT derides as “shock jocks”) cover the local political scene with more depth than the LAT.
Laughner (3928ec) — 6/20/2009 @ 6:36 amI will be assigning in my grad reporting class next fall.
Oooh! Snap!
It will be contrasted with other reportersā work as an example of how NOT to write a story. Itās a great example and I thank him for providing it, albeit unwittingly
Now that’s gonna leave a mark. Funny how some journos are forever bringing up irrelevant points in their alleged rebuttals – who the Sam hell cares that you “teach” a “grad reporting class?” Is this supposed to be something that’s going to impress anyone here, or in fact anyone among the general populace at large?
Either rebut the charges by sticking to the topic at hand, or don’t – but leave the posturing and preening outside.
Dmac (f7884d) — 6/20/2009 @ 6:54 amMethinks Moonbat Cooper doth protest too much.
JD (cb96c4) — 6/20/2009 @ 6:59 amDmac – It is informative insofar as it shows how bastardized the teaching is at JournoList programs.
JD (cb96c4) — 6/20/2009 @ 7:07 amWhat never ceases to amaze me, JD, is every time a journo comes on to a blog to defend his work (or someone else’s) they always go for the larding of supposed superior experience in order to obfuscate their meager defense. The few journo professors I’ve met from Medill (Northwestern) and Columbia were among the most pompous blowhards ever encountered – they were completely in denial (or more likely, clueless) about how their bloviations came across to actual sentient beings who worked in occupations that demanded strict accountability and abhorred fatuousness.
Dmac (f7884d) — 6/20/2009 @ 7:32 amAt the risk of threadjacking, looks like the final showdown is coming in Iran today:
http://pajamasmedia.com/michaelledeen/2009/06/19/so-now-its-saturday-in-iran/
Hundreds of thousands may die for the cause of freedom, while POTUS stands mutely by, muttering about meager expressions of “support” for “peaceful demonstrators.” This guy knows nothing about history – I suggest he read McCullogh’s bio of Truman for starters, and he can concentrate on his actions during the Berlin Airlift. Or he could read up on what happened during the Prague Spring uprising that was crushed by Soviet troops and tanks.
Dmac (f7884d) — 6/20/2009 @ 7:38 amBut I thought doing so would be a tad patronizing
Ya think ?
Patronizing doesn’t begin to cover it.
I try to stay away from LA when possible because it reminds me of what the LA Times and its coreligionists have done to the beautiful state I adopted 50 years ago.
Mike K (90939b) — 6/20/2009 @ 7:39 amThe best part was the snide remarks about a story that questions LAPD assertions that crime is as low now as it was in 1956. Did any of those people live in LA in 1956 ? I did and I know better.
Mike K (90939b) — 6/20/2009 @ 7:45 amI liked that tad bit patronizing part too. He managed to avoid being a tad bit patronizing by going straight to pompously patronizing. Well played, sir.
JD (cb96c4) — 6/20/2009 @ 8:02 amCooper’s comments above are comedy gold.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/20/2009 @ 9:07 am“The best part was the snide remarks about a story that questions LAPD assertions that crime is as low now as it was in 1956. Did any of those people live in LA in 1956 ? I did and I know better.”
I didn’t – I was born in Hollywood in 57….but, were 90% of outstanding murder warrants in 1956 Los Angeles for illegals? Don’t think so.
…….and is there anything funnier than a Times reporter referring to the ‘corporate goons’ at another paper?
harkin (e6d004) — 6/20/2009 @ 9:23 amThank you to Patterico for publishing his post about Rainey’s attempted take-down of yours truly. I’ll admit, yes, I’ve been enjoying myself. I am thrilled to see the backlash as people read Patrick Range McDonald’s terrific and tough story, “Trust Us, It’s 1956,” that uses fact upon fact to question Bratton’s manipulation of statistics — at a time when far too many people are genuflecting to the chief. I like the charming Bill Bratton too, and I see him at Yama cocktail parties. But his effort to claim that LA is as safe as 1956, and the amazing and lazy repeating of this fakery by the media, is a good story. Check out our LA Weekly piece about it, if you haven’t already.
My strongest reaction to the Comments so far, however, is one up there somewhere in which a horribly sexist and outrageous comment is made about our star investigative/crime reporter, Christine Pelisek.
Pelisek is very much her own woman. No man, in her professional or private life, has “forged” or otherwise crafted her. Christine Pelisek has fought for every career advance, elbows out at times, and won them fair and square. Christine Pelisek is a sponge, she is a weapon, she takes no guff and she follows her own road. A national magazine is working on a piece about her “Grim Sleeper” achievements, and a top cop said he wished “she worked for us.” The paternalistic stuff I saw, in one of the Comments above, is just plain creepy, icky, old-school, ossified, foolish, male, repressive, female-bashing. Let’s bury the Eliza Doolittle canard about successful female journalists really, really deep in the 1970’s where it should forever rot.
Jill Stewart (b3afc3) — 6/20/2009 @ 9:27 amJill – Great work. If you are drawing the ire of twatwaffles like Rainey and Cooper, you are doing something right.
JD (cb96c4) — 6/20/2009 @ 9:39 amComment by Mike K ā 6/20/2009 @ 7:45 am
If Bratton has stats that show crime now as low as, or lower, than in 1956, he should be ensconced as Director of OMB in DC, since he’s already an expert at ‘book cooking’!
AD - RtR/OS! (46d66c) — 6/20/2009 @ 9:41 amWhy does Cooper have such disdain for the “corporate goons” who run the LA Weekly…
AD - RtR/OS! (46d66c) — 6/20/2009 @ 9:44 amdid they spike his job application?
Cooper despises anyone that actually commits an act of journalism. He prefers stenography.
JD (cb96c4) — 6/20/2009 @ 9:47 amWhy does Cooper have such disdain for the ācorporate goonsā who run the LA Weeklyā¦
did they spike his job application?
Cooper used to work there.
Patterico (cc3b34) — 6/20/2009 @ 10:14 amFull Disclosure, Mark Cooper is my Blog-Father and I proudly claim him as such. He encouraged me when people on the right side of the political equation wouldn’t answer my e-mails. Now, having said that, Coop has, in his words, burrowed so far up the anatomy of a certain individual who needs a teleprompter that he doesn’t lambaste some of the shibboleths of the left as much as he used to. Oh, he’ll still take a well reasoned swipe at a Castro or a Chavez, but only because they are so far out of the leftish mainstream that they have become caricatures of the left.
I no longer comment at Coop’s site, not because I don’t still admire the heck out of him, but because the readership/commenters that are regulars there are so foul-mouthed and not likely to use any degree of reason that it is pointless to comment there. At least here, Patterico doesn’t seem to allow foul mouthed retorts when a leftish troll appears and leaves a few trollish comments.
GM Roper (d53336) — 6/20/2009 @ 10:14 amBoth Stewart and Patrick McDonald are masters of one-sided, skewed reportingā¦ so it is sort of amusing to watch them gag on a spoonful of their own elixir.
It’s funny, I read through this post, the links and subsequent comments and nowhere do I see where Stewart and McDonald are gagging on anything. To the contrary, they both appear to be satisfied with their work and pleased to have had it further validated by their peers. It’s telling that Mr. Cooper would stoop to such childish name calling, it pretty much tells us all we need to know about him, albeit unwittingly.
And by the way, Mr. Cooper, you did not addresse in your comment the heart of the post, why did a “professional” journalist like Mr. Rainey not contact the focus of his takedown, Jill Stewart and Patrick Range McDonald? Do you believe that to be representative of a “professional” journalist, to negate contacting and interviewing the centerpiece of a story?
Dana (8d88ef) — 6/20/2009 @ 10:22 amAmazing story, Patterico. And to repeat myself, Cooper’s preening self-congratulatory yet venom-filled response—completely oblivious to how he comes across, odd in a “journalism professor” and “journalist”—is classic. When he comes down from his ego-high, he will be ashamed.
Or maybe not.
Eric Blair (5a226d) — 6/20/2009 @ 10:36 am[…] At Patterico. […]
Rainey Day: Everyone responds - Notes from LA (a39307) — 6/20/2009 @ 11:25 amI’m a former Angeleno, now living in the Midwest. When I first re-located in 2005, I cured my homesickness by continuing to read the LA Weekly online. But something wasn’t quite right–the stories seemed less relevant, thinner, less inspiring. Then I noticed John Powers was no longer cranking out articles, and every couple of months another favorite writer would disappear. Eventually I figured out that the Weekly was, to put it bluntly, unraveling. Cooper was the last writer I read, and when he left I knew it was the end.
RIP, LA Weekly. Thanks to the internet, I can still find the writers who made it great.
Roger (a2c5ae) — 6/20/2009 @ 12:40 pmIf Roger is cheerleading Cooper, that does not say much for Roger.
JD (eb396d) — 6/20/2009 @ 1:30 pmOf course, as my l[object TextRange] from back in my FBLA days shows, there’s no guarantee that Rainey, like all the other people who write about Stewart, would have actually quoted her accuately. She sure does worry these guys.
Kate (3f5714) — 6/20/2009 @ 3:57 pmOf course, as my [linked piece] from back in my FBLA days shows, there’s no guarantee that Rainey, like all the other people who write about Stewart, would have actually quoted her accuately. She sure does worry these guys.
Kate (3f5714) — 6/20/2009 @ 3:58 pmhttp://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowlLA/newspapers/wiener_pals_recall_the_good_old_days_at_the_la_weeklyits_all_jill_stewarts_fault_62080.asp
Kate (3f5714) — 6/20/2009 @ 4:02 pmCooper used to work there.
Comment by Patterico ā 6/20/2009 @ 10:14 am
His favorite song must be “Burning Bridges”!
AD - RtR/OS! (46d66c) — 6/20/2009 @ 4:31 pmIām certainly to the left of the Patterico center of gravity but anyone who knows my work knows I have not hesitated from…
And you wouldn’t be quite as ticked off at Stewart even if her politics were fully to your liking?
Yea, right.
I read the following and seems to me that your ideological biases are the main thing that’s stoking your passion against Stewart. IOW, if she were a stereotypical leftwinger, you might chortle at her on occasion — and perhaps even lightly needle her to be a contrarian for contrarian’s sake — but I bet you’d still feel much, much more comfortable with such a person managing an alternative or even mainstream publication.
Also, nothing more phony and pathetic than liberals who generally encourage the nonsense of urban, and certainly inner-city, politics, who nonetheless run off to the suburbs — eg, Woodland Hills — at the end of the day—although perhaps the reality of that cognitive dissonance did make you vote for Riordan and Ah-nold (although I bet you either held your nose or thought you were being a daredevil turncoat while punching out the chads for the “R” party on your ballot.)
Mark (411533) — 6/20/2009 @ 5:31 pmI am copying this from Jill’s site because it is so deliciously rational (as opposed to Cooper’s ‘snarling bulldog infected with a rather strange world-view’…..this would be tripe even at the Huffington Post):
“Annette Stark says:
Full Disclosure: I used anonymous sources in an article I wrote for Jill Stewart. She was concerned until I disclosed to her the sources, their reason for requiring anonymity and that this same information would be coming out in court within weeks of our articleās publication. I find working with Jill isnāt any different from working with my other gifted and fair former editors Alan Mittlestaedt, Dean Kuipers and Steve Appleford at CityBeat. Itās just a total pleasure to write for Jill. For real Jill has an agenda. Itās called ānews!ā
I welcome Marc Cooper to come back now and say my work is ālaughableā too.
Thatās fine, and heās entitled to his opinion (though maybe not an entire Times hatchet piece solely focused on his opinion), but Iād like to ask Marc Cooper how long heās going to fall back on that old āJill vs. Alanā drama while failing to disclose that Jill actually hired Alan back at the LA Weekly?”
harkin (1448f3) — 6/20/2009 @ 5:57 pmWow. I actually kind-of agree with Mark.
Never saw that one coming.
LYT (cf1265) — 6/20/2009 @ 10:44 pmThe best thing the Los Angeles Times delivers to its remaining readers are value coupons every Sunday, carefully tucked inside and protected by half and inch of newsprint. Very thoughtful of them.
Let this tomb die.
DCSCA (9d1bb3) — 6/20/2009 @ 10:53 pmWoodland Hills? Oh man. Fighting the beast from WITHIN, I suppose?
hiphophighschool (d5dfdd) — 6/21/2009 @ 1:52 amIrony alert! Marc Cooper is a belligerent ass, completely full of himself, who throws stones from his cave. That this lump of narcissistic feces has the gall to criticize others for being one-sided and skewed is a testament to the degree of deranged self-blindness possible in human minds.
ianam (7020ee) — 6/21/2009 @ 11:06 amCooper never comes down from his ego high and never feels shame.
ianam (7020ee) — 6/21/2009 @ 11:11 amIrony alert!
Furthermore….
Mark (411533) — 6/21/2009 @ 11:37 amI could hardly understand Rainey’s article, even with a headline that tried to focus it. (Part of this may be the copyeditors at the LAT online who insist on a new paragraph every sentence or two. Check it out! It makes all thoughts unintelligible.)
Anyway, was his point that Jill should or shouldn’t have a point of view? I didn’t know that the LAW strives not to be labeled, interesting. But of course all journalism SHOULD be aggressive.
Also, from McDonald’s note: Iām an out gay man with liberal sympathies. What does this have to do with the price of beans???
Donna Barstow (5d0da0) — 6/24/2009 @ 4:56 pmBlogs are so confusing.
[…] current version of the L.A. Weekly that Marc Cooper and James Rainey despise so much reminds us of some of the embarrassing connections Sanchez had with local politicians: Sanchez has […]
Patterico’s Pontifications » More on the Arrested “Reformed” Gang Member Alex Sanchez (e4ab32) — 7/22/2009 @ 12:41 am