Wow: today I got my first-ever “keep scrolling” link from Instapundit. I feel like someone died and made me Tom Maguire! Anyway, I thought it might be a good idea for me to do a roundup of my recent posts on the L.A. Times‘s Andres Martinez/Grazergate non-scandal, in chronological order, so you can see it in a logical fashion:
- I first mentioned the controversy here, and said that “we need to see all the e-mails concerning who was selected to publish on the opinion pages, and why — and have hearings with testimony, under oath, including transcripts, from all the players involved.” (I added: “Yes, I’m joking. I assume there is nothing to this.”)
- In this post, I noted Andres Martinez’s startling statement: “I will not be lectured on ethics by some ostensibly objective news reporters and editors who lobby for editorials to be written on certain subjects, or who have suggested that our editorial page coordinate more closely with the newsroom’s agenda . . .”
- Here, I noted that L.A. Times staffers prompted the cancellation of the Grazer-edited “Current” section.
- Martinez ended up naming names, which I noted here.
- In this post, I first speculated that the underlying story was a left-wing coup by newsroom staffers.
- I provided further evidence of that theory here, saying that I believed that “a cabal of left-wingers blew up this nonscandal as a way to embarrass Martinez.” I noted some misreporting of the controversy by Tim Rutten, as well as the fact that the paper’s new editor had similar conflict issues at the Chicago Tribune.
- For what it’s worth, Tim Cavanaugh, who works at the paper, wrote me an e-mail quoted here in which he praised “the excellent reporting you and Kevin Roderick are doing on this matter.”
- In this post, I argue: “The real scandal at the L.A. Times has nothing to do with Andres Martinez — and everything to do with the paper hiding the truth from its readers.”
- But is there really a reason that leftists would be upset at the paper’s editorial page? I explore that issue here. The answer is: quite possibly, yes.