Wonderful News: Bob Sipchen to Return to L.A. Times
Regular readers know that the L.A. Times, former regular target of this blog, started to bore me a few years ago. Sure, I still whack Michael Hiltzik and other assorted clowns there, but the thrill of regularly busting them is gone.
But I have to say that I report this news with unadorned pleasure: a truly decent man is coming back to the paper. Via L.A. Observed comes the internal memo:
I’m thrilled to announce that Bob Sipchen, a Pulitzer Prize-winning writer and editor, is returning to the Los Angeles Times as a senior editor in the relaunched California section.
Many of you know Bob from his days as a Times reporter, columnist and editor and one of our first bloggers. He left in 2007 to edit the Sierra Club’s magazine, Sierra, and serve as communications director for the nonprofit in San Francisco.
In his second tour at The Times, Bob will oversee the daily centerpieces that are a signature of the California section. He will also plan the Sunday section, direct a group of enterprise reporters and serve as a coach and mentor. He will start Jan. 1.
I don’t think I realized that Bob had won the Pulitzer. (Wow, someone who actually deserved it! As opposed to those undeserving and dishonest cretins Michael Hiltzik and Chuck Philips!)
Long-time readers — and I mean long-time — will remember that Bob helped spearhead a regular feature at the paper called “Outside the Tent” — an op-ed space devoted to critics of the newspaper. I contributed a couple of columns to that space. If you have not read them, please take a moment and read them now:
OK, I didn’t like the headline of that second piece, which was about the paper’s whitewashing of the nastier aspects of Cindy Sheehan. Bob wrote the headline, and he thought it was funny, and didn’t understand why I thought it dismissive. That’s OK. It was an honest disagreement I had with an honest man. And hey! Rush Limbaugh ended up reading parts of my piece on his show, and marveled at the fact that this newspaper was willing to publish such harsh criticism of itself on its own pages.
Other “Outside the Tent” contributors included a former contributor to this blog named Jack Dunphy, as well as Mickey Kaus, Hugh Hewitt, the beloved late Cathy Seipp, and others. (How I fit in with this illustrious group, I’ll never know.)
Bob was an excellent editor; he took my half-formed thoughts and turned them into something readable. He also allowed me to interview him for this blog — back in 2005. (Almost 10 years ago! Oh my gosh, we’re all so old!) The interview was in three parts and (I submit) makes for good reading even today — and gives you an idea why I love this man:
Not everyone is supportive of the feature. After a few installments, one senior editor at the paper expressed the opinion that the feature was, as Sipchen put it, a “truly dreadful idea.” As best as Sipchen can recall, this opinion was probably expressed just after my installment was published. (Hmmm. It doesn’t sound like my suggestions are going to be implemented any time soon . . .) On the other hand, another editor who had initially expressed misgivings about the feature has become a convert.
I asked Sipchen about the school of thought that journalism should be more transparent — that reporters and editors should be more forthright about disclosing their biases. I mentioned that some variant of this view has been advocated by many blogger-journalists, such as Jay Rosen, Jeff Jarvis, and (to some extent) Dan Gillmor. I noted that Marc Cooper’s recent “Outside the Tent” piece made the same argument about the paper’s reporting from Iraq.
Sipchen expressed strong disagreement: “When I’m reading a newspaper story out of Baghdad, I don’t give a rat’s ass about what some 28-year-old reporter thinks.” Sipchen said that he wants the reporter to tell him the facts on the ground, not what the reporter’s conclusion is about those facts. “Why on earth should I care about what the reporter thinks?” Sipchen asked rhetorically. “Maybe he’ll become an expert and I’ll care then.”
Patrick,
I’m impressed. You got it right and I don’t seem to have said anything terribly stupid (although I’m sure your readers will disabuse me of that notion).
Ha.
Ah, the good old days.
Bob is truly one of the few people I ever respected at that place, and I respect him deeply. I am thrilled that he is coming back to Los Angeles and to the L.A. Times.
I’m just telling you: the good guys (and gals) in this town are rejoicing tonight. Just rejoicing.
Welcome back, Bob!
The LA Times long ago ceased to be a serious newspaper. But it appears that there may be stirrings of competence with the return of Sipchen.
Skeptical Voter (12e67d) — 11/13/2014 @ 10:43 pmSipchen is the best. They should have turned the paper entirely over to him years ago, before all was lost. Not sure what this new job is (I don’t speak Memo), but what the fuck, turn him loose, everything he touches will be transformed.
Scott Kaufer (6a43db) — 11/14/2014 @ 12:22 amI’m so glad that you can appreciate the reportage without fretting about the political bias. Pick up a New York Times one Sunday and just enjoy it. There are people doing good work in journalism. It’s a waste of energy to tar them all with the brush of bias, even if it’s true.
Thanks for re-sharing those interviews. Wow, almost 10 years!
carlitos (c24ed5) — 11/14/2014 @ 6:40 amHey Pat.
The links that you posted above work correctly, but the links to parts 2 and 3 from the original “part 1” article do not.
carlitos (c24ed5) — 11/14/2014 @ 6:45 amYeah, during one of the migrations between servers someone renamed all the links in a way that broke all my old internal links. My Dog Trainer Year in Review posts are basically a wasteland of dead links now.
Patterico (98df0d) — 11/14/2014 @ 6:52 amI’m so glad that you can appreciate the reportage without fretting about the political bias.
Carlitos, given some of the comments you’ve made over the recent past (and their own ideological tilt therein), and your previously discounting articles (or at least one, I recall) from sources that you dismissed as biased (right-leaning, I believe), I wonder if you’d be quite so easily rationalizing away the nature of the NY Times or LA Times if they were slanted to the right instead of to the left.
Regardless of a newspaper’s ideological orientation, a combination of economic and technological factors make newsprint increasingly like the proverbial buggy whip in a world of Model Ts. I remember quality-oriented newspapers fretting about the decreasing size of their circulation and a stressed-out bottom line years ago before the internet had really started to hit its stride.
Mark (c160ec) — 11/14/2014 @ 7:02 amI’m not “rationalizing away” anything. I’m recommending that everyone get a hot beverage and read, without preconceived notions, the Sunday New York Times. It’s a damn good read. You will really learn some things, especially with the international coverage. Enjoy it while you can, because yeah, it’s going to be obsolete soon.
carlitos (c24ed5) — 11/14/2014 @ 7:16 am“We”, meaning my daughter’s mother, have always subscribed to the Sunday NYT. It’s ok if what you’re reading is not very important to you. And not all that vital with an internet that gives you access to the entire world’s newspapers.
nk (dbc370) — 11/14/2014 @ 7:23 amI know, but there is something about paper. Mrs. carlito and I tried to go digital. We each had our tablets on the table, trying to read the Sunday Tribune while eating our breakfast. It did not work. Paper is tactile, what the Germans call “haptische.” It’s satisfying.
As an aside – nk, does Greece have anything like menudo or pozole? I occasionally do avgo-lemono soup for breakfast, but I always seem to get a funny look from the wait staff.
carlitos (c24ed5) — 11/14/2014 @ 7:29 amif you leave out Judoren and Kirshner on coverage of Israel, Bosman, Robles, et al on practically everything, ignore 2/3 of everything Kilpatrick writes about Egypt, consider Friedman, and Kristof as satire, then yes, it’s a fine paper
narciso (ee1f88) — 11/14/2014 @ 7:41 amOne thing that NYT writers and editors do is end their sentences with the correct punctuation mark.
carlitos (c24ed5) — 11/14/2014 @ 7:47 amif you leave out Judoren and Kirshner…
That makes me think of the saying: And other than THAT, Mrs Lincoln, how was the play?!
Mark (c160ec) — 11/14/2014 @ 8:06 amYes, it’s boiled coarsely ground wheat. We called it “bligouri” in my part of the country. A complete meal for some people. It’s flavored salty/spicy not sweet. And there’s fava, a porridge from chickpeas, also salty/spicy flavored.
nk (dbc370) — 11/14/2014 @ 8:11 amThe menudo I’ve had in Chicago is a broth with chunks of tripe? It’s called “patsia” and it’s made differently in different parts of Greece. My mother made it from unweaned lamb tripe, with rice and avgolemono. My in-laws make it a simple broth with goat’s leg cartilage. Is there a menudo which is a red tomato-pepper spiced corn meal soup?
nk (dbc370) — 11/14/2014 @ 8:19 amIt is. I’m not super fond of tripe, but the broth is delicious.
Pozole is a very similar soup, but hominy is added, and pork is the meat. Well, pork hoof. Which sounds similar to goat’s leg cartilage. Hmm. Either way, it’s less gross than tripe.
Thanks for the tips. I’m off to Greektown later for research.
carlitos (c24ed5) — 11/14/2014 @ 9:24 amThere is isn’t anything the Slimes could do to make me ever give them once cent again. Their past and current mendacity and propagandistic fervor can never be atoned for.
MikeHs (03abc5) — 11/14/2014 @ 9:29 amYeah, the New York Times only has like 3 writers. Good point.
carlitos (c24ed5) — 11/14/2014 @ 9:31 amGreek Islands, Roditys and Pegasus are solid fare at reasonable prices. Artopolis is very nice, especially their bakery. Santorini is the place for broiled whole sea bass; a bit pricier.
nk (dbc370) — 11/14/2014 @ 9:34 amMeh, go to any place in Greektown. All Greeks know how to feed people. 😉
nk (dbc370) — 11/14/2014 @ 9:35 amSantorini has that grill. So good. It’s weird; I go to GI or Rodity’s for meat, but always to Santorini for the fish.
carlitos (c24ed5) — 11/14/2014 @ 9:53 amWithout being snarky, the problem with the NYT is that I know that as a whole I can’t trust it, and I have not, and plan not, to invest enough time cross checking the articles to determine who I can and can’t trust.
If nothing else, there is the 4th kind of lie, deceit by omission.
Maybe it’s my upbringing, but I’d rather live on beans and grain than tripe and other things.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 11/14/2014 @ 9:55 amWe do too. Santorini’s fish is top notch. Artopolis for the oven-baked, like mousaka, but it’s generally good. We cater(ed) our parties from them.
nk (dbc370) — 11/14/2014 @ 10:00 amWaste not, want not, MD. Besides, that’s all the hidalgo* or the tsiflik* left you.
nk (dbc370) — 11/14/2014 @ 10:06 amMD – Elsewhere, you said that you haven’t listened to NPR for some years because of some story or other. (please correct me if I’m wrong) Did you ever consider that some of their product offering is actually worthwhile?
I mean, the BBC is biased as hell, and I still enjoy their app and radio coverage of global news.
carlitos (c24ed5) — 11/14/2014 @ 10:14 amWell, the only waste in a bag of beans are small stones, and I don’t mind wasting them…
And a little corn husk in with the corn meal I can live with as well.
As a Chinese friend said years ago in a restaurant, “Those are duck feet, you don’t want that.” (I think that’s what it was).
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 11/14/2014 @ 10:16 amCarlitos, as I said, since I know that what I heard on NPR that I knew about was very slanted, why should I forget that experience and believe what they are telling me is true when it is something I don’t know about?
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 11/14/2014 @ 10:20 amMichael Crichton and Murray Gell-Mann are/were both smarter than me, so I don’t mind following their example in this.
You don’t have to “forget the experience;” I think that was my whole point. Do you even know if the staff from whatever year are still working for NPR? Have you ever heard “car talk” or “wait wait don’t tell me?” How could lefty bias from years ago even affect such an experience?
I’m just saying – there is good, entertaining journalism out there. I’m not sure how long we can enjoy such stuff on dead-tree media or FM radio. We might as well enjoy it.
carlitos (c24ed5) — 11/14/2014 @ 10:42 amI’ve read Josef Stalin. Ira Glass kind of pales after that.
nk (dbc370) — 11/14/2014 @ 11:24 amI’m not saying there might not be some enjoyable things on NPR, I’ve watched many a British mystery, Downton Abbey, Antiques road show, etc.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 11/14/2014 @ 11:58 ambut I don’t trust anything of political content, and I don’t trust their science to be anything other than PC. Carl Sagan was at least as much as a material/secularist evangelist as an astronomer (so I’ve been told by PhD astronomers/astrophysicists).
I figure if their editorial policy has allowed for overt dishonesty and bias over the years (Gwen Ifill an unbiased moderator???) I should not expect a change anytime soon.
The LA Times? I cancelled my subscription in 2006 as it had abandoned news, and turned into an opinion outlet for every platitudinous gasbag it could find. Remember the childish Kurlander piece on July 4, disparaging the founders and limited government? The labored ruminations of forgettable Joel (“I’m hip, really I am!”) Stein? (He disparaged people who liked flags on the fourth, being a superior type, you know). The bloated writings of Tim Rutten, who was finally let go, and the continued inanities of Sandy Banks? But Sipchen wrote some detailed pieces, worth buying the rag to read. A feature called “School Me” was quite good as I recall. I would actually, cautiously, buy a copy at Starbucks on days he is featured.
Harcourt Fenton Mudd (5e0a82) — 11/14/2014 @ 12:07 pmMaybe he can get access to that infamous tape of President Obama at a dinner to honor a jihadist sympathizer.
After all, he can’t run again for president.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 11/14/2014 @ 12:10 pmThe Sierra Club is a non-profit???
seeRpea (b08b27) — 11/14/2014 @ 3:07 pmif so, can these type of loopholes be closed in the tax law by an IRS opinion ?
It’s Sipchen’s association with the Sierra Club that worries me. That outfit is rabid. Maybe he left because he was the only sensible person there.
Jerry (2d2a13) — 11/14/2014 @ 6:14 pmHey MD – I had a busy weekend, but thanks for the replies.
I disagree with you, but that’s OK. We agree on Carl Sagan, but probably with different conclusions.
carlitos (c24ed5) — 11/17/2014 @ 11:29 am5. Patterico (98df0d) — 11/14/2014 @ 6:52 am
I believe there’s actually a standard way to change the old links (which appear in the address bar) to the new ones.
Old link (no longer working)
https://patterico.com/2005/02/21/2678/interview-with-la-times-editor-bob-sipchen-about-the-outside-the-tent-feature/
New link:
https://patterico.com/2005/02/21/interview-with-la-times-editor-bob-sipchen-about-the-outside-the-tent-feature/
You just delete the 4 digits, and the extra slash, in this case, 2678/
Sammy Finkelman (a248bd) — 11/18/2014 @ 7:34 amcarlitos (c24ed5) — 11/14/2014 @ 7:16 am
Why just Sunday?
The actual news section (as opposed to the Sunday Review, which contains more closer to opinion articles and 3 times the number of Op-ed pieces) is the same size on Sunday as it is on other days of the week.
Sammy Finkelman (a248bd) — 11/18/2014 @ 7:47 am