This is a long overdue honor. For pretty much the whole newspaper. But, this particular month, it's earned by their sports department. Even more specifically, the writers who cover the Los Angeles Dodgers. Lucy will s'plain.
I'm one of those staunch holdouts. I love a daily newspaper. Not reading it on-line. I need the actual feel of the paper in my hands. The prints coming off onto my fingertips. I've been that way ever since I was a kid.
My father, when he wasn't working nights, would go down to the 241st Street Subway station in the Bronx around 830PM. That's when the first edition of the next day's NY Daily News would be thrown off a truck. Tomorrow's news tonight. That used to be the marketing slogan. Frankly, it was a complete waste of ink, particularly if you were looking for baseball box scores. The line for that night's Met game would show that the Phillies didn't score in the top of the first inning. That was it. Oh, yeah, the Met battery was Tom Seaver and Jerry Grote. So much for lots and lots of information.
But, still, he'd bring that paper home and I would devour it for the funnies, the movie ads, and the like.
To this day, wherever I am, I need a morning newspaper. On the train in NY. At my desk in California. Out here, on the What's Left Coast, we've got one singular choice. The Los Angeles Times. I'm lucky enough to find it on my doorstep at 530AM every day. But, except for baseball scores, movie reviews, Sudoku puzzles, and Blondie & Dagwood, I probably would be skipping it altogether.
Like most other media outlets, fair and unbiased journalism has gone the way of Silly Putty and Colorforms. Back when, the newspaper would give you accurate and unstilted accounts of the world around you. The only opinions you would find were in the Letters to the Editor, where Minnie from Bainbridge Avenue in the Bronx would bitch and moan about spending too much in the emergency waiting room of Fordham Hospital. The rest of the paper would be as straight as an arrow.
Not any more. Especially for rags like the rapidly regressing New York Times and even the New York Daily News. And even more especially for the Los Angeles Times.
If you don't have the most left-leaning point of view in the universe, the Los Angeles Times is not for you. Their front page headline might be "Malia Obama Suffers Infected Cuticle." Meanwhile, in the lower quadrant of the front page, you might read "Former President Ronald Reagan Dies. Details inside on Page 45."
You get the picture. Now, usually, I can endure the relentless carping of Conversative and Liberal ideas, better known as the Clash of the Non-Titans that is choking the life out of our nation. But, after a while, it becomes the same point made over and over and over. You'd have to be a card carrying member of the Orpah Book Club to be so stupid that you don't get it.
But, those flagrant and incessant opinions have now filtered the LA Times sports pages. Most notably with their coverage of the Los Angeles Dodgers. For some reasons, there are major axes to grind and Lizzie Borden must be the department editor. The writers there hate the McCourts who own the team, and there's no argument here. I, too, will not be happy until they are dropkicked on the fly back to Harvard Square. But, all of this venom now envelops every move that the team makes and there is no middle ground as far as the Times scribes are concerned. This is not reporting. It's a daily morning bonfire.
The latest victim of the attacks is the incoming Dodger manager, Don Mattingly. You all know that he will assume outgoing Joe Torre's role at the helm next season. Apparently, there was a three year contractual clause signed as early as last spring.
Okay, so from the reaction in the LA Times, you would think Mattingly was Richard Speck and he had just walked into a dormitory of student nurses. One writer after another pretty much disemboweled him in print. It would be no surprise to me if Don hightailed it back to Indiana and spent the rest of his days watching them change the luncheon menu at the Cracker Barrel. And it will get worse next spring when he finally sits in the seat and gets shelled in print just because he alternates between blue and black ink when filling out a line-up card.
You see, in the eyes of the LA Times, the Dodgers can do no right. And they laid it on pretty thick during this managerial change. Torre stepped down because the McCourts have no money. Mattingly has no experience. Triple A manager Tim Wallach should have gotten the job. It's a good thing they weren't around for Jackie Robinson's first game in the majors. The liberal-minded Times would have found fault with that, too. Oh, sure, they brought up Jackie. But, how come the stadium organist refuses to play anything from Porgy & Bess?
By throwing so much negativity out there, they stir up the same sentiment in fans and it is completely unwarranted. The smart and discerning Dodger fan knows we have no idea what kind of manager Donnie will be. Nor do we know whether or not Tim Wallach would make a decent skipper. All of a sudden, the latter is nothing short of Jesus Christ lugging a cross over a sea of palms. The Times drums in to us that we are missing our shot at the next Mike Scioscia. Does anybody know this for sure? Really?
And the notion that Mattingly has no previous experience? Here's a crosstabulation I would like to see. How many of the Times writers who are carping about this actually voted for Barack Obama? Hmmm. I thought so.
It's all ugliness and terribly unfair to all concerned. I don't mind opinions from a columnist, but this is ridiculous. Where is the level-headed smart baseball coverage we'd like to see? Save for the always consistently even-handed Ken Levine and Josh Suchon on KABC's Dodger Talk, it's non-existent in Los Angeles. And largely due to the only newspaper in town.
Maybe the LA Times should look itself in the mirror. They should consider why nobody is reading the damn thing. As the advertising dollars dwindle, the paper keeps getting smaller and smaller. At this point, the menu down at the Cheesecake Factory offers more useful information. And even the print keeps getting tinier and tinier. The font size for the comic strip page is just like the last line on your eye doctor's wall. You know. The letters you can't read.
Is this any way to run a newspaper? Apparently not. But, it's a darn good way to ruin one. As for me, I'll keep getting it delivered. I need that feel on my fingertips every morning. Using a microscope to see what Dagwood just said to Mr. Dithers. Struggling through the Friday Sudoku, which is always labelled "diabolical." And hoping like hell that I'd read some decent stories on baseball and the state of the Los Angeles Dodgers.
Yes, I'll still be a subscriber. But I wouldn't be surprised if Don Mattingly cancels in the morning.
Dinner last night: Turkey burger.
2 comments:
It's shocking that America's second largest city has such a lousy paper. No part of it is worth reading, not even their coverage of show business in a company town. The reporting and editing are weak. The Times is on the endangered species list which is too bad because I like to hold a newspaper, too. Old habits die hard.
Th LA Times is doing their part to reduce paper waste and succeeding quite nicely. I am now in week 3 without a phyiscal newspaper being delivered to my door on a daily basis. The whole family enjoys the Sunday paper so I walk down the street and pick up a copy then.
15thavebud
Post a Comment