Editor's Note: LA Times columnist James Rainey, following the lead of several former Times and LA Weekly writers, today slammed the aggressive coverage of city politics in the LA Weekly and the person responsible for its prize-winning stories, News Editor Jill Stewart. Stewart, whose body of work over many years is as good and as important as anybody's, fired back in an email blast (jillstewartresponse.doc). It's all too much for Bruno, the lover of dog trainers.
By Bruno
LA's Watchdog
You may assume I make of habit of peeing on the The Dog Trainer - AKA the Los Angeles Times - both literally and metaphorically (how do you like that for a dog?), but sometimes those guys downtown just make it too damn easy.
Case in point: Jim Rainey's "On the Media" column this morning that damn near calls for news editor Jill Stewart to be dragged out of the LAWeekly and shot for her alleged sins against journalism.
As my dear old dad used to say: "People who live in stone houses shouldn't throw glass." (Hey, he was just a dog.)
Rainey -- whose own paper recently wrapped an entire edition in an ad for a TV show - under the masthead! -- bemoans the fact the Weekly isn't the same old lefty publication it was in the old days before his pals got fired, then attacks Stewart for being, well, just too hard on the elected officials his colleagues pal around with.
"... Stewart's more important, and insidious, influence has been not as an ideologue but as a pedagogue -- pushing for what one writer who has worked with her called "gotcha, pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey journalism."
(Like most of those who spoke to me, this scribe declined to be named because he feared Stewart could hurt his chances of writing for the Weekly, a risk he didn't want to take in a contracting market.)
Whoa Jimbo! Is that an anonymous source you're quoting? Isn't that what you always do? And are you allowing "this scribe" to dump on someone who might have been his or her boss?
I'm just a dog, but I thought that was forbidden under the guidelines established by The Dog Trainer after it was embarrassed by one of its writers a few years ago. Regardless, isn't it only fair that your readers know the name of "this scribe?"
Rainey devotes a lot of his column criticizing a LAWeekly piece that eviscerated our mayor for not working hard enough. He doesn't like the analysis of his schedule. He feels the same way about the Weekly's look a crime stats.
I guess his subscription to Los Angeles magazine expired. He probably really hates its recent cover declaring Antonio a "failure."
Rainey wraps up his piece by saying:
"I don't see the Weekly regaining its equilibrium as long as Stewart remains in charge of the news section."
Bruno has a suggestion for Rainey's next "On the Media" column: Try to find your boss Russ Stanton and ask him why The Dog Trainer has euthanized his staff, pretty much killed local political coverage and sold its soul to advertisers.
I'll read that one - before I relieve myself.
Woof!
By Bruno
LA's Watchdog
You may assume I make of habit of peeing on the The Dog Trainer - AKA the Los Angeles Times - both literally and metaphorically (how do you like that for a dog?), but sometimes those guys downtown just make it too damn easy.Case in point: Jim Rainey's "On the Media" column this morning that damn near calls for news editor Jill Stewart to be dragged out of the LAWeekly and shot for her alleged sins against journalism.
As my dear old dad used to say: "People who live in stone houses shouldn't throw glass." (Hey, he was just a dog.)
Rainey -- whose own paper recently wrapped an entire edition in an ad for a TV show - under the masthead! -- bemoans the fact the Weekly isn't the same old lefty publication it was in the old days before his pals got fired, then attacks Stewart for being, well, just too hard on the elected officials his colleagues pal around with.
"... Stewart's more important, and insidious, influence has been not as an ideologue but as a pedagogue -- pushing for what one writer who has worked with her called "gotcha, pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey journalism."
(Like most of those who spoke to me, this scribe declined to be named because he feared Stewart could hurt his chances of writing for the Weekly, a risk he didn't want to take in a contracting market.)
Whoa Jimbo! Is that an anonymous source you're quoting? Isn't that what you always do? And are you allowing "this scribe" to dump on someone who might have been his or her boss?
I'm just a dog, but I thought that was forbidden under the guidelines established by The Dog Trainer after it was embarrassed by one of its writers a few years ago. Regardless, isn't it only fair that your readers know the name of "this scribe?"
Rainey devotes a lot of his column criticizing a LAWeekly piece that eviscerated our mayor for not working hard enough. He doesn't like the analysis of his schedule. He feels the same way about the Weekly's look a crime stats.
I guess his subscription to Los Angeles magazine expired. He probably really hates its recent cover declaring Antonio a "failure."
Rainey wraps up his piece by saying:
"I don't see the Weekly regaining its equilibrium as long as Stewart remains in charge of the news section."
Bruno has a suggestion for Rainey's next "On the Media" column: Try to find your boss Russ Stanton and ask him why The Dog Trainer has euthanized his staff, pretty much killed local political coverage and sold its soul to advertisers.
I'll read that one - before I relieve myself.
Woof!
Ron Kaye is the former editor of the Los Angeles Daily News where he spent 23 years helping to make the newspaper the voice of the San Fernando Valley and fighting for a city government that serves the people and not special interests.
Twice in recent years, Los Angeles Magazine listed Kaye among the city’s most influential people, specifically in the area of politics. Kaye has been variously described in the media as the “accidental anarchist,” “the Patrick Henry of the San Fernando Valley” and a “passionate populist.” He is now committed to
carrying on his crusade for a greater Los Angeles as an ordinary citizen. Previously, Ron worked at the Los Angeles Herald Examiner,
Associated Press, Cleveland Plain Dealer and The Australian as well as papers
in Fairbanks, Alaska and Yakima, Wash. He also wrote for Newsweek magazine, The Guardian in London and the National Enquirer.
Woof back at you Ron Kaye. I couldn't remember if I had a sign-in account on your site so I clicked your anonymous box, but this is the real Jill Stewart (proof -- I know what you and Rick Orlov talk about over golf).
I'm honored to have you take my side. Your departure from journalism has been a big blow to those of us who still believe in "afflicting the comfortable and comforting the afflicted."
I was also deeply honored at the Los Angeles Press Club awards Sunday night, where we at the Weekly mopped the floor with the LA Times. Accepting his award for lifetime achievement, Rick Orlov said that he'd like to see three people at the podium with him to get a similar honor. Orlov, that wonderful gent, named "Linda Breakstone, Linda Deutsch and Jill Stewart." What fabulous company to be in.
Maybe some guys just can't take it? I waited for James Rainey to call me and frequently checked my voice mail after word spread last week that he was doing a "hit piece" on me. Never heard from him.
David Shaw is rolling in his grave.
Ron-
Thank you for covering this issue. When I read that column this morning, I could not believe my eyes.
How dare anyone at the Los Angeles Times call out Jill Stewart for actually having some damn political coverage in the LA Weekly. If you want to know some of the real contours of the political landscape in Los Angeles, you have to read the LA Weekly -- not that piece of shit that now passes for journalism on Spring Street.
Jill Stewart has more courage in her little finger than the dickless wimps at the Los Angeles Times who don't like to write about "controversy."
And I always laugh my ass off once a year when the Los Angeles Times picks one lousy easy heart string pulling topic and writes a series "exposing" something. Whenever I read those series I know that someone at the Times decided that that would be the one investigative news entry of the year for a Pulitzer Prize.
Therefore, this year we are treated to an expose of the foster care system in Los Angeles. Wow. Surprise. Out of 50,000 kids in foster care one might get neglected and unnecessarily die at the hands of a series of fuck ups. Thanks Los Angeles Times. Let's all applaud this "hard hitting" piece, pull out the Pulitzer Prize for your "effort,"and watch the power brokers of City Hall go ignored for another year of appalling behavior.
Meanwhile, the Los Angeles Times sits on countless stories and scandals because some of them would undermine the political establishment they are so busy ass kissing. Times reporters knew about the affair of Antonio Villaraigosa long before the Daily News had the guts to print the story. There are other scandals the LA Times are sitting on right now.
Maybe the next issue of Los Angeles Magazine should have a picture of the Los Angeles Times building on the cover with the word "Failure." printed across it.
Jill Stewart and the reporters from the LA Weekly do twice the work and get psid less than the crybabies at the Los Angeles FAILURE Times. Journalism and ethics survive in Los Angeles but just not on Spring Street.
That was fun, wasn't it, Bruno?
Congratulations to Rick Orlov, Jill Stewart and all at their "TIME OUT" celebration
at the LA Press Club.
All of you are having fun - best job in the world.
I don't see any journalistic redeaming value in Rick Orlov.
I've been reading him for years, and as far as I can tell he doesn't earn his salary; there are/were far better reporters at the Daily News, who have been fired, yet he remains; and he seems to have a cozy place in Villaraigosa's breast pocket and does nothing more than rewrite City Hall press releases.
Maybe he won an award for quantity (longevity) rather than quality.
"Rainey ...attacks Stewart for being, well, just too hard on the elected officials his colleagues pal around with.
Hey, Ron & Bruno, you've blatantly and completely misstated the message/assertion of Rainey's column, then consumed a few hundred words scolding Rainey for having written something he didn't write.
This is astonishingly similar to the age-old ploy of campaigning politicians everywhere, characterizing an opponent's vote on proposed legislation as having been "anti-family," or "failing to support the troops," or as "an attack on small business."
Mischaracterize the reality, and then rail against the opponent for having supposedly embraced a position that is almost universally deemed repugnant.
Rainey did NOT lecture Stewart for being "too hard" on pols. He complained that LAW stories often don't offer facts that support either the given headline, and/or the story's conclusions. Rainey also maintained that, under Stewart's guidance, making LAW conclusions/headlines accurate requires withholding and ignoring some facts, and contorting some facts that are provided. (i.e., LAW declares that LA's Mayor spends just 11% of his time on city business, but that conclusion requires assuming that at all times when the Mayor appears in public to speak to a city issue or promote a city feature, he's doing so exclusively to heighten visibility as part of his pursuit of higher office.)
To credibly refute Rainey's assertion, I should think it would be productive to point out excerpts in referenced LAW articles that disprove Rainey's version of events.
Instead, you and others have apparently chosen to descend into a personal exchange of snarky attacks and name-calling.
I haven't been reading LAW regularly for the last couple of years, and if there's little or no substance to Rainey's harsh criticism, I admit I haven't read enough personally to know for myself, so I'm looking to others for some informed, rational and detailed analysis.
Unfortunately, other than your seemingly very personal disdain for Rainey and/or the LAT, or perhaps your fondness and respect for Stewart, all I've found thus far is Stewart's response, which absolutely ignores the bulk of the specifics of Rainey's columns, and instead attempts to convince us Rainey has evil motives and no integrity. Oddly, on-the-record remarks about Rainey found in previous LAW stories about Rainey included scathing condemnations of him such as, "...I mean, if you want to know what’s going on at the L.A. Times, Rainey’s coverage is probably the best source in the country.” (Stewart also offers a bizarre diversion into contests won, but with no attention given to which LA-area outlets competed directly against LAW for those many awards - HINT: The LAT often wasn't one of them.)
I remember Jill Stewart's excellent coverage of the LA City Council many years ago with the New Times. She exposed an interesting side to then Councilwoman Jackie Goldberg's unusual behavior behind the scenes when she didn't get her way. I also enjoyed hearing her on KCET. Just like other consumer products, competition improves quality. As an example, when Ron Kaye was at the Daily News, it provided an important alternative to the cheer leading or at least the non-coverage of important LA City Hall issues. The more points of view, the merrier.
James Rainey concluded:
"I don't see the Weekly regaining its equilibrium as long as Stewart remains in charge of the news section. It's likely that a new top editor will be brought in from outside.
"But no one I talked to expects the bombastic Ms. Stewart to be going anywhere any time soon."
What I read (someone else might have a different opinion): James Rainey hopes Jill Stewart gets shown the door at LA Weekly. However, indications to Rainey are it doesn't look like it will happen. I don't understand what is meant by "new top editor will be brought in from outside". Outside Los Angeles? Outside LA Weekly?
Evidently because of an attack piece on Antonio Villaraigosa; the primary example of the biased attack journalism at LA Weekly under Stewart given by Rainey. Count the number of lines devoted to the AV story in the column. Also, but less prominent, for an attack piece on Chief Bratton's crime statistic claims.
LA Weekly isn't the only one that suspects AV of being AWOL most of the time and views Bratton's statistics with a grain of salt, believe me.
So has the L.A. Times information to dispute LA Weekly's contentions? Other than James Rainey's own "Edward Scissorhands, slice-and-dice analysis."
Rainey misses the old West L.A. Ultra-Liberal L.A. Weekly. All I got to say is good riddance to it.
I remember Jill Stewart's excellent coverage of the LA City Council many years ago with the New Times. She exposed an interesting side to then Councilwoman Jackie Goldberg's unusual behavior behind the scenes when she didn't get her way. I also enjoyed hearing her on KCET. Just like other consumer products, competition improves quality. As an example, when Ron Kaye was at the Daily News, it provided an important alternative to the cheer leading or at least the non-coverage of important LA City Hall issues. The more points of view, the merrier.
Thanks Jill you did an excellent and very needy job on this joker and it was the truth. This Rainey guy is no different from Ted and JESSICA who touches on big stories then backs down when it get real and dirty. "No risk takers" are small and insignificant in this world. Keep writing we need your help.
Hi Ron
I remember reading Stewart and Barr in New Times way back when. I think they pushed the envelope in terms of style, but their ability to back up their assertions with demonstrable facts sometimes came into question. I question Stewart's journalistic behavior in terms of her strongly partisan activity for the recall-Gray Davis campaign, including her participation in a radio show on KFI called "Total Recall." Whatever you call it, it is certainly a departure from the traditional kind of journalism. Perhaps Jill is willing to try to link that activity with traditional journalism, or perhaps it was just a job at a time when the job market was slow. I don't know, but I remember that the radio program didn't do much in terms of presenting the opposition viewpoint, in spite of the fact that there was one. In short, it was very much a partisan political activity rather than journalism.
I'm not trying to defend the Times here, as it has fallen down on covering the sorry state of city government for years. I'm just reacting to the fact that the Times, after much goading from Marc Cooper, has finally said a few words about LA Weekly. Cooper has devoted thousands of words to the Weekly's recent history which includes slashing staffing and firing its previous editor Ochoa.
In defense of the Weekly article on Antonio Villaraigosa's hours (in which it is claimed that he devotes 11 percent of his working time to actually working on city business), the response is simple: The article became widely known and widely read within a few days on the Weekly's own site. If the Times had had any interest in the subject at all, it could have assigned its own reporter to the story and either refuted or supported the Weekly's assertions. Instead, we see one Times columnist taking a few snide slices at the Weekly piece, but hardly dents it at all. Yes, it is possible to interpret AV's ride on the subway as something more than just a publicity stunt, but it is hard to take it much more seriously. Or to put it briefly, we ask the Times, "Is that all you've got?"
At one level, I would argue that your own site and CitywatchLA.com are doing a better job of questioning the behavior of local government than the print media. I understand that the Weekly is going through a period of turmoil which is somewhat based on economics and somewhat based on the new owner's political philosophy, but the Times has no excuse for its inadequate local political coverage.
My four all-time favorite reporters of my activist life in Los Angeles -
Rick Orlov
Jill Stewart
Beth Barrett
Mariel Garza
If I don't agree with any of them 100% of the time, that makes me relieved because there is nobody in the world who I agree with all the time.
To the poster who doesn't think Rick Orlov has any journalistic redeeming value, are you on crack? Rick's institutional knowledge and base of friends makes him more than worthy.
Jill and Beth have bigger balls than any one else and I love their opinionated selves.
Mariel is the funniest reporter and she's has just as much courage as the other two women.
When I read posters bitching about them, I know they're onto something good and I should go read their latest stories.