[Update #4 (the others are below): Martinez has resigned. Well, maybe he does have some modicum of good judgement, after all. I’m sorry that it wasn’t in play earlier, and wish him well. We all screw up, and for one, I hope that he and the rest of the Times management – realizing that they’ve stepped in it – learn from this mess.]
You know, I haven’t spent a lot of time angsting about the LA Times since I canceled my subscription (more time!! a perk!!), but I do have parts of the paper in my RSS reader.
So tonight I’m taking a break from work and scanning, and I discover this – thing – from Times Editorial Page Editor Andres Martinez. I know I’m going to kill any chance I have of ever doing an op-ed there…and I’d love to, just so my mom would get all thrilled…but this is the sloppiest [two words denoting a sex act in which one partner is usually kneeling] of a rationalization I’ve read in a long time. The subject is simple; the Times will this weekend turn management of the editorial pages over to uber-producer and hair gel model Brian Grazer. Grazer is represented by a PR company who employs a woman named Kelly [no last name given] who happens to be … wait for it … sleeping with Andres Martinez, who made the decision to give Grazer the keys for a day.And it suggests three things worth noting:
* Martinez judgment is about as bad as Duke Cunningham’s. When I do my reality show “What The Hell Were You Thinking?” this will definitely rate an episode. I can’t imagine that anyone in a position of authority in a media company would be tone-deaf enough to let this pass. But they were, and this says a lot about them and their judgment.
* It reinforces the amazing halo effect that the rich and powerful have on the media. Grazer isn’t just a smart guy and a successful producer in film and television –
Given his well-known intellectual curiosity and his track record as a Hollywood producer, Brian is a terrific choice to kick off this quarterly program of guest editors. Brian and his partner Ron Howard have had a hand in bringing such stimulating fare as “Felicity” and “24” to the small screen (as well as my fav sitcom of all night, the tragically short-lived “SportsNight”) and such blockbusters as “A Beautiful Mind” and “The Da Vinci Code” to the big screen.
Now my personal theory is best summed up by a quote I vaguely remember from one of the Prizzi books, in which it is suggested that people hang around the really rich and powerful in the hopes that they will “spontaneously give them a lot of money”. Or a development deal, or a ride in their Bugatti with two ounces of blow and a bunch of cute young publicists.
* It demonstrates a level of craven excuse-making that would make any decent journalist need a bib. Here is more Martinez:
At no point was Kelly involved in pitching the concept of a guest editor, or any individual. My conversations were with Allan, who himself had no role in our subsequent talks with Brian and Michael Rosenberg, Imagine Entertainment’s president.
The decision to ask Brian to do this was not mine alone, but was taken by three editors here, and then approved by the publisher. The suggestion that my relationship with Kelly had anything to do with this choice is without merit. Suggestions that she or anyone else has favored access to our pages is also absurd. When Allan has pitched op-ed pieces to the Times – and we can only think of two instances this has happened in the last year – he has dealt directly with that page’s editor, Nick Goldberg.
Neither he nor Kelly would dream of approaching me.
And I would never dream of approaching a friend in political office to help my son get an internship…oh, wait, I did…and no political donor ever does it to get access or influence…oh wait…sell us another one, please.
And when the newspapers are in the pockets of the wealthy and powerful (and the beds of their publicists), how, exactly are they supposed to “comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable”? Might make that next date awkward, Andres, no?
Color of the day: disgusted.
Update: corrected silly misspelling of Grazer’s name…
Update #2: In a stunning display of spin-mastery, Kelly’s boss Allan Meyer says:
“If this thing was killed over this, I think it would be an indication of the moral bankruptcy of the Los Angeles Times. If the newspaper is so fearful of what uninformed people think that it would allow itself to be stampeded in that way … I think it would be a very sad day.”
I haven’t seen this good an attempted reversal since I watched Biggest Guy wrestle in high school…
[Update #3: Bill Boyarsky, former Times city editor, has a grown-up response to the Times’ newest calamity:
To keep faith with its readers, the Los Angeles Times needs to put all its resources into an investigation of what’s been going on in the Current section and the editorial pages, now tainted by the conduct of editor Andres Martinez.
A beefed up team of top reporters should join media reporter Jim Rainey in examining past Current sections and editorials to see whether they have been influenced by publicist Allen Mayer and his associate, Kelly Mullens, who has been dating Martinez.]
I think his name is Grazer, not Glazer. He’s the guy who produced that totally unnecessary remake of Psycho. In fact, he has apparently produced just about every movie made in the last 20 years, with the possible exception of Surf Nazis Must Die.
His IMDb biography lists this as a personal quote: “Pornography is very important and is about the physicalization of a philosophy, but I think that the birth of how trends happen or how barriers get broken down is more interesting.”
Whoa. Whoa, Dude. That is so Next Level – you are the total Heidegger of Hollywood.
A.L.,
I certainly don’t disagree with your dislike of this, but would beg to differ about the mission of newspapers. Forget “comforting the afflicted and afflicting the comfortable”–that conceit is an important part of how they got to be in the horrible place they are today. I’m with Joanne Jacobs in thinking they ought to just report the news…
You don’t need to be kneeling to do that. It makes for better porn, but porn is different from the real thing.
Which I’m sure Kelly could have told you.
Everything that is wrong with Los Angeles and the Los Angeles Times encapsulated in one silly fluff piece. The worship of the wasteland of no talent that is Hollywood.
I had to click on A.L.’s link for the most humorous quote in the LAT piece he discusses. Martinez congratulates himself on his high standards of journalistic integrity, saying
bq. This is why in 2005 I instituted anti-nepotism policies barring editors’ relatives from writing for our pages, even if the editor at issue is disclosed. No one I have a personal relationship with would ever dream of approaching me about trying to get something in the paper.
… But, see, it’s like totally different if I approach my girlfriend’s boss and we all engage in some mutual backscratching. Hey, nepotism, etc. is about People Like Them, and we’re People Like Us!
SPQR says above, “The worship of the wasteland of no talent that is Hollywood”.
I’m going to have to argue strongly with that statement. There is a great deal of talent in Hollywood. You won’t find a more creative set of accountants any other place. Beyond creative accounting, you also have the most talented sycophants and hangers-on, also. Publicity agents who can sell the public on the idea that the vapid pretty actor/actress of the day isn’t only nice to look at, but talented, deserve respect (and even if the public doesn’t buy the pub completely, it gets printed and talked about on the air, so their job is done). Add to that the various technical people, who despite putting out crappy picture after crappy picture, continue to innovate and excel at all the behind the camera tasks.
What I will agree with is that you wouldn’t know there was so much talent in Hollywood based on what ends up on your HDTV (and occaisonally in the movie theaters, that the home experience is replacing the ‘film going’ experience is a different matter).
There’s more talent than ever in the dream factory, sadly, only a fraction of that talent ends up in the end product and the consumer experience.
As far as the LAT editorial page/opinion section, they could lose it entirely and it wouldn’t be missed. Not just for political reasons, but because they rarely feature writers with anything worth saying addressing topics worth our attention.
The LA Times shows the overall state of journalism in the United States. First, the Times cuts their overseas reporters and say they are going to focus on “hyperlocal” journalism, which literally means nothing; and second, now they are turning the editorial page over to an journalist wannabe. This is the state of declining circulation and importance in LA County. Usually, newspapers fit the personality of the city they are home to. Why say more?!
Danny L. McDaniel
I hate to say this, on this of all days, but I really wish Cathy Seipp could write about this.
According to a “post by Patterico,”:http://patterico.com/2007/03/22/6006/this-sundays-current-section-to-be-scrapped/ it gets better. With interesting relationships in the public eye, the whole thing may be scrapped. And
bq. …The buzz also includes accusations that other clients of Mullens and Allan Mayer [a partner at Mullens’s firm] have turned up on the Times opinion pages, a claim that reportedly is being checked by higher-ups.
Bill – no, that’s a perfect thing to say today. When I wrote this, I amped up my prose by asking “what would Cathy have to say about this?”…
A.L.
Scandal! A guest-editor’s PR firm also employs some girl who’s sleeping with a guy from the LA times.
When did we transition from real news to the junior high playground?
This isn’t news. What is news? Brian Grazer is within four degrees of Kevin Bacon.
I’m with you guys! We need to ignore Hollywood from now on. What’s with these actors (Fred Thompson) who think they know anything about politics (Ronald Reagan, Sonny Bono)!
And it’s not just actors either. Folks gain a bit of celebrity and think they’re qualified to represent the nation (Steve Largent, J.C. Watts).
I’m glad to see we are getting beyond that.