OK, Firing Scheer Must Have Been The Right Thing To Do

From a letter to the editor in today’s L.A. Times:

The greater Southern California community is one that not only proudly embraces its diversity, but demands it. Your decision to fire Robert Scheer is a great disservice to the spirit of our community.

It seems that your new leadership, especially Publisher Jeff Johnson, is entirely out of touch with your readers and their desire to be exposed to views that stretch them beyond their own paradigms. So although the number of contributors to your Op-Ed pages may have increased, in firing Scheer and hiring columnists such as Jonah Goldberg, the gamut of voices has undeniably been diluted. I suspect this may ultimately decrease the number of readers of those same pages.

My greatest fear is that the underlying reason for Scheer’s termination is part of a larger trend toward the corporatization of our media, a trend that we, as American citizens, must fervently battle for the sake of our swiftly diminishing free press.

It’s signed by that freedom-loving American, Barbara Streisand.

OK, I guess I’m glad he’s gone, then. (Actually, I was quite pleased to see him go. It wasn’t just that I’m on the opposite side of some issues, but that I could mentally write his entire column with a high degree of accuracy once I noted the subject. We could have a cgi script that would generate more interesting and unpredictable commentary.)

Losing Scheer and Streisand both would be an immense boon to the Left and the chances for the Democratic Party.

3 thoughts on “OK, Firing Scheer Must Have Been The Right Thing To Do”

  1. Here’s a beaut:

    bq.. “She says that the SoCal community loves diversity and that Scheer was a pillar of that spirit, or some such.

    She then says that the LA Times’ readers enjoy having their horizons expanded and have a “desire to be exposed to views that stretch them beyond their own paradigms.” Then she says “So although the number of contributors to your Op-Ed pages may have increased, in firing Scheer and hiring columnists such as Jonah Goldberg, the gamut of voices has undeniably been diluted.” (Note: as I understand the Op-Ed page changes result in a net gain of left-liberal voices).

    Ok. So, am I the only one who thinks this makes very little sense? Babs clearly loved and agreed with Scheer. So how in the world did he stretch her beyond her own paradigms? Scheer actually reinforced Babs’ own worldview (and she’s clearly speaking for the lefty crowd in general). I expose her to views that stretch her beyond her paradigms. Right? I mean you can say my column is crap, but I think everyone can agree she disagrees with it. She then says that the number of voices has been increased the gamut of them has been dilluted. Beyond the very serious possibility Babs doesn’t know what “gamut” or “although” actually mean, isn’t it clear that Babs & Co. think diversity simply means “hearing things I already agree with”?”

    p. Of course, that’s EXACTLY what they mean. From “The Corner”:http://corner.nationalreview.com/05_11_20_corner-archive.asp#083201

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>