Cruising With Scheer

On Thursday, the Los Angeles Times reported that, "In a major shakeup of its editorial pages," it "...was discontinuing one of its most liberal columnists."

Three days later that columnist, Robert Scheer, had 150 people aboard The Nation's (8th) annual cruise crammed into the Queen's Lounge listening to his take on life, liberty, leisure, lies, the state of journalism and what's going on at the LA Times. The Nation's John Nichols led the conversation. Here are a few extracts from Scheer's spirited sprint through the last decades and days:

"From the company's point of view, it was a dumb move...If only they were interested in sales and profits--be better newspapers. This was a stupid management decision, A bad marketing decision...Let's go bland and safe. "

"The publisher is a wise guy accountant, a bean counter from Chicago. These guys come in from Chicago. They don't know the community, and buying the LA Times may be illegal. The Chicago Tribune already owns a TV station in same market and they're going to need a waiver request which comes up next year. The publisher/bean counter's Pasadena golf buddies probably warned him about me--that flaming leftie. Now, (Times founder) Otis Chandler was no liberal but he understood his community. The paper is in decline. They have 300,000 fewer readers now than when I went to work there nearly thirty years ago....The Times needed me more than I need it...I always have two or three balls in the air at same time...That's why I teach full-time at USC's Journalism school, do my radio show, write books. It's the only way to live. I've been preparing for this moment for 30 years. I wrote this column for 13 years and never missed a deadline.

Probably the main reason they got rid of me was O'Reilly and Limbaugh made a living out of attacking me, pounding, pounding away and doing mass mailing campaigns against me and using me as a punching bag. But I'm still standing; the paper may collapse....Would never go back to LA Times, and I start at the San Francisco Chronicle next week. They called Wednesday to offer me a column. And my syndicate stood behind me, and the syndicate's editor, a conservative, was quoted in Editor & Publisher saying he was 100 percent behind me. And it's the same syndicate which runs O'Reilly's column.

These bean counters from Chicago are so cowardly that the day after the paper won five Pulitzers they flew into LA and met with chief editors at Burbank airport hotel to let them know of cuts. This corporation doesn't understand that the paper belongs to readers and they forget that it's not just shareholders and wider profit margins that count." Bob then broke some news: "And this week, they're going to lay off over 70 editorial people."

"They may own the paper but they don't own the readers. And LA is the greatest city in the world, and it deserves a great newspaper. Send emails and make them aware that if they want to keep readers, they got to be smarter. Let them know readers don't like being treated with contempt. I know there's shock in the Times building; every switchboard jammed, emails streaming in." [One estimate is that close to 10,000 e-mails have come in; on Saturday, the paper ran a series of articulate, intelligent, reasoned and serious letters protesting Scheer's ouster.] "I hear the publisher is walking around in a daze. Didn't anticipate these protests, the level of outrage. Every complaint you send will give space to others who want to do bold, brave reporting."

Click here and here to email the editor (Andres Martinez) and publisher (Jeff Johnson) respectively of the LA Times.

And don't worry about Scheer. Two weeks from now, he launches his new website, TruthDig.com. "I think of A.J. Liebling, who said 'freedom of the press belongs to those who own one' and fortunately, now I own one. I think of the site as Ramparts on speed."

"I don't like to get bummed out," Scheer said. "Hey, reports of my end are premature. I am not into suffering. Want to enjoy life, act on my passions, write about the truth. And I will."

Comments (17)

1. Their cancellation of Robert Scheer's column only confirm's what is a growing awareness in America- with fewer and fewer exceptions in print, if we want an honest opinion or real journalism we must go to the increasing number of independent writers on the internet.

   It looks like Jeff Johnson's e-mail has been disabled, most likely due to the volume.

   Posted by fromredbird at 11/14/2005 @ 12:48pm

2. Bushrules:

   I'm curious. Do you expect to be taken seriously with rants like you did here? It seems to me that you should consider taking your nasty act somewhere else. Perhaps the LA Times has an opening for a rightwing columnist?

   Posted by trabaris at 11/14/2005 @ 1:18pm

3. Less inflammatory than "Bushrules"....the question still remains-

   "Probably the main reason they got rid of me was O'Reilly and Limbaugh made a living out of attacking me..."....that was the MAIN reason?

   So if a blowhard radio DJ and a ditzy cable show host "make a living out of attacking" a liberal columnist...that columnist is "finished" in the Majors (i.e. the newspaper game) and goes to the "A" league of "website journalism"?

   Seems like Mr Scheer is giving a LOT of power to weak critics.

   How about this for an "objective" view on his dismissal? If the Times gets thousands (or atleast several hundred) e-mails...from LA Times readers (not nation-wide bloggers, who don't even BUY the Times)...asking for Mr Scheer's reinstatement, he gets his job back.

   But if he doesn't get that "mass support" of Los Angelinos...maybe...just maybe...he wasn't ALL that popular, and the Times made the right decision???

   Posted by Mask at 11/14/2005 @ 1:27pm

4. The rants and raves by right-wingers like Bushdrools just illustrate the desperate state in which the Bush supporters find themselves.

   Liberals and Progressives have to keep pointing out the propaganda and lies of these right-wing radicals. Don't let them get away without a response.

   Remember the Latin phrase qui tacet consentit.

   Liberals and Progressives should never give consent the illiberal ideas espoused by the radical right-wing Republicans.

   Posted by oraibi1952 at 11/14/2005 @ 1:46pm

5. "The rants and raves by right-wingers like Bushdrools just illustrate the desperate state in which the Bush supporters find themselves."

   I'm so happy you libs are so delusional...Keep it up....it should serve you well in 06 as it did in 2000, 2002, 2004.

   Posted by *bushrules* at 11/14/2005 @ 1:49pm

6. Wow. Hey, the president won so damn well in 2000, now didn't he? Even got the plurality of the pop...erm. Nevermind that one.

   2002: AMERICA BE SCARED! 2004: AMERICA BE SCARED EVEN MORE! 2006: AMERICA ONLY STAYS SCARED SO DAMN LONG, YOU AWFUL JACKASS

   Posted by Megido at 11/14/2005 @ 3:41pm

7. Sounds a lot like Gore when he became un-hinged...Remember??

   "He betrayed our country....he played on our fears"

   Keep it up libs...

   Posted by *bushrules* at 11/14/2005 @ 3:54pm

8. "Probably the main reason they got rid of me was O'Reilly and Limbaugh made a living out of attacking me, pounding, pounding away"

   Poor little baby...you can sure dish it out but cant take it huh VanDumEVIL

   Posted by >bushrules at 11/14/2005 @ 4:54pm

9. Scheers lost his job because no one was reading him. The circulation is dropping..maybe the people of LA feel about the paper the same as the country feels about Air America....that there is nothing there but biased rants..or worse, no one wants to read liberal left wing ideas?

   Went to SF? Now there he should do well and actually think he is in mainstream......

   Posted by john maasch at 11/15/2005 @ 12:54am

10. I am also curious: Did the Nation, champions of equality, take any of those poor Wal Mart employees on thier cruise?

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 11/15/2005 @ 12:43pm

11. I know that Mr. Scheer probably feels that his column was bumped off due to political bias, and I'm not disputing him on that.

    But I think that it was more about the times not wanting to pay the salary of someone who's been on the payroll for 30 years. They probably offered him a buyout, he didn't take it, so the accountants made the decision.

    Has the newspaper business gone soft? Hell yeah! I live in Philadelphia, which used to be a multi-newspaper town. I read the Inquirer on Sundays (when I feel like it) and read the Daily News for the opinion section (the letters that they get make me fall on the floor laughing sometimes. Especially the ones from those who left the city when Philly elected its first black mayor. It's amazing how putting people of color in power can clear all of the bigots out!)

    Now, for actual news, I either read one of the weekly papers, watch Democracy Now, or read newsmagazines. I don't rely on newspapers because the folks that own them care more about profits than news, there are too many features about crap that really doesn't matter (American Idol contestants? Please!) and publishers are so afraid of offending advertisers that they cringe whenever reporters ask tough questions of these advertisers.

    Having been in the news business for 15 years, it breaks my heart to have to admit that it's no longer as fun as it used to be. But it's not. In fact, it's downright depressing.

    But at least Mr. Scheer has bounced back. The Chronicle seems like a good editorial page fit for him. But didn't they just lay off a bunch of people and give their reporters a contract that pretty much screws them over.

    Rent, don't buy Mr. Scheer. Rent, don't buy.

    Posted by edwriter at 11/15/2005 @ 1:29pm

12. And if you take Mark Morford's spot, I'll organize a boycott against you. I mean it. He's the best!

    Posted by edwriter at 11/15/2005 @ 1:30pm

13. Liberal media indeed.

    Posted by pete1949 at 11/15/2005 @ 1:53pm

14. I read something once that described neoconservatism as organized hypocrisy. I thought that was true, until I realized that it is a political philosophy for those afflicted with Attention Deficit Disorder. For my neocon friends, two things, First, the truth is not defined as repeating the same lie over and over again. Second, a slogan does not constitute a "policy" I'm sure that the rabid neocons (like Bushrules) will declare me one of those "wacky liberals", but I am actually the worst nightmare of Bush and his crowd, a traditional conservative. You remember us, we are for limited government and fiscal responsibility, the antithesis of the current positionality (not what they say, but what they do) of the Republican party.

    Last night, I got a marketing research call (obviously at the behest of the Republican party) asking me my liklihood of supporting various potential Republican candidates; Condoleeza Rice, Dick Cheney, Bill Frist, Newt Gingrich, John McCain, and Tom DeLay. Then they asked me about whether I'd vote for each of these candidates or Hillary Clinton. Although I voted for John McCain in the 2000 primary, I lost some respect for him after he decided to campaign for Bush in 2004 after the despicable mean-spirited way that the Bush campaign treated him in 2000. For the res, if it comes down to that choice, I'll order a Hillary sign for my yard. She is ultimately less dangerous.

    Also, although I like reading opinion, I'd prefer that it be original Bushrules. If I want to read Commentary magazine, I'll visit that site. And perhaps others would take you more seriously if you could manage some adult discourse.

    Posted by Rodriguez at 11/15/2005 @ 2:03pm

15. I have been reviewing the policies at The LA Times. They are attempting to preserve and increase readership by providing more balance. No matter how much you hate conservatives, we are a buying public who deserves to have our side aired in the media. The management has read the handwriting on the walls and have found a big percentage of the decline in readership is because of conservatives abandoning the papers. A typical reason is because the big dailies have abandoned balance. As an example, do a Lexis Nexis search and find any story with any pretension of balance on Global Warming. Stop whining! Johnfwd

    Posted by libliblib at 11/16/2005 @ 12:36am

16. Maasch, ALL the papers are losing circulation, and the liberal media is a lie, just look at the coverage in the con sales job of the run up to the war, or the way they all gagged up on Dean during the primary

    Posted by johannesrolf at 11/16/2005 @ 09:33am

17. I submitted a protest e-mail to Jeff Johnson at the LA Times. I got an immediate response, a downloadable form letter, that stated

    "I appreciate your letting us know how you feel about our decision to stop running Robert Scheer's weekly Op-Ed column at year's end. For the past 12 years, Bob's passion and eloquence have enriched the opinion pages of The Times where he previously worked as a reporter. We are grateful for his contributions.

    However, we are very excited about our new roster of columnists, who are described in more detail in the attached link. Our goal, as always, is to provide you with the widest possible range of commentary on local, national and foreign affairs. Please take the time to get to know our new columnists. We hope you will find them as provocative and engaging as we do, and that over time, you will develop a rewarding relationship with them.

    We truly appreciate your loyalty to the Los Angeles Times. You are a valued reader, and we don't want to lose you. You have my pledge that in no way will we back away from the diversity of voices and viewpoints that you've always expected from The Times."

    I'm not familiar with the writers who are not conservative on the list he supplied at http://www.latimes.com/services/newspaper/mediacenter/releases/la-mediac enter-2005-1110,0,5001385.story?coll=la-mediacenter-releases

    Some of you may be better acquainted. However, it sounds like he is just hoping to convince us to "read things his way".

    Posted by RLynn2 at 11/17/2005 @ 08:01am