L.A. Observed: Andres Martinez Quit L.A. Times “After a Fight Over His Girlfriend”
I never really got the impression that L.A. Observed blogger Kevin Roderick much liked Andres Martinez, the former editorial page editor for the L.A. Times. At the time of Martinez’s departure, there was apparently a war between the old-guard liberal Tim Rutten types and the pro-Martinez faction, and Roderick seems much more like someone who sympathizes with the old-guard liberal Tim Rutten type crowd.
Still, clicking on L.A. Observed early this morning, I was surprised to see this description of Martinez’s decision to quit:
The editorial page editor quit after a fight over his girlfriend;
Huh?
I realize Roderick is including this as part of a year-end roundup, and (unlike myself) he is trying to be very pithy about how he encapsulates the essence of every link. But still, this strikes me as very strange wording. The fight was over the decision to scrap a Sunday Current section guest-edited by a producer who was represented by the P.R. firm that Martinez’s girlfriend worked for. That description is not very pithy, but it’s accurate and not misleading. Saying Martinez “quit after a fight over his girlfriend,” I submit, is misleading. I mean, it sounds like he and another guy were both sleeping with her and duked it out as a result.
Patterico,
Interesting find. This is unbelievably crass and uncivil. Would you want to work for these people? They will tarnish you for no good reason. This editor should not have had to leave over something like this. That is what disclosures and corrections are for.
I actually forgot about this little scandal, and when I read the beginning of your post, I did assume two guys were messing around with teh same girl, and one was too childish to stay after a fight over the girl. Makes the editor look like a weakling, a scumbag, and a dirty person.
I guess these guys aren’t buddies.
“Former Prime Minister Bhutto left the campaign trail after she was unable to reconcile her differences with two representatives of a rival political organization.” is about as informative.
Jem (9e390b) — 1/2/2008 @ 5:45 amCivility is not a word found in the lexicon of (Post)Modern Journalism (nor, honesty, I suppose).
Another Drew (8018ee) — 1/2/2008 @ 12:04 pmI don’t think it’s uncivil, exactly. Just maybe a little overly dismissive.
Patterico (d381a4) — 1/2/2008 @ 1:24 pmI think it rises to the level of incivility. It’s beyond terse and the misleading conclusion is too obvious to have escaped notice.
Merovign (4744a2) — 1/2/2008 @ 3:37 pmWould you go for “juvenile snark”, Patterico?
SPQR (26be8b) — 1/2/2008 @ 3:38 pmAs a year-end recap, I thought the description was okay, probably because I remembered the basic nuts & bolts of the (non-) scandal.
So Roderick’s title was fine, at least for anyone who remembered Brian Grazer and the internal power struggle that ensued. Sometimes the goal is to get people to read, not necessarily to slander or smear a story. Maybe here:
Editorial page editor quit, post-Calendar fiasco. Girlfriend blamed.
Vermont Neighbor (2ad0bf) — 1/2/2008 @ 8:51 pm