Et tu Los Angeles Times?

Much to my horror and sadness, this past weekend the Los Angeles Times made good on its threat to dismantle the opinion section and reinvent the wheel, as it were, with the cutesy “Current” section. Now, I really was hoping that I would like this change, that I could see some cool twenty-first century vision in this new endeavor. My favorite part of the entire new section was, however, Jamie Court’s critique of the section as a blogotorial. I guess I should give props to Bob Sipchen for at least running that piece.

I know that the Los Angeles Times has had to face decreased circulation (note some of the interesting connections made about the mid-90s problems in the hyper-linked piece) and the advertising boycotts of the automotive industry. The Los Angeles Times’ response is, apparently, to change itself to fit some profile seemingly more desirable to the public and General Motors. People who pride themselves on their “free” media should question not only the damage done by our government to the first amendment but the damage done by a kind of unethically protected capitalism (Adam Smith, by the way, thought morality was kind of essential for capitalism – if you don’t believe me, feel free to pick up his writings or a book by Larry Rasmussen). I know that I’m an idealist, but some part of me likes to think that we all still should do things for truth and justice first and capitalist greed somewhere considerably further down the line.

My disappointment in the Los Angeles Times is not just that it would so willingly compromise its content for money the week that the White House press corps actually exercised its spine. It is also that the Los Angeles Times dumbed the opinion section down – they did not just change the content, or institute a more conservative bias, they literally dumbed it down. That’s right, because you, me, and GM and more likely to give our money to a dumber Los Angeles Times. Not only did the new Current section include some less than cogent arguments like “Box office Blues Stem from Blue-State Bigotry,” it included pieces that truly do qualify as “blogotorials.” What place does Joel Stein’s little rant about Hogwarts’ fans being stupid (to which I just have to say, “I’m rubber and you’re glue”) have in a reputable national paper? Should not the Los Angeles Times actually challenge us to think about government, politics, global affaris, etc.? A blog is the perfect place for a terse emotional rant on some obscure point of ire; that’s why I am writing this here and now. I, however, would not advise the Los Angeles Times to publish this my blogpost, no matter how deftly I use the English language.

While I do believe there could be some good in making the opinion section more interactive, I just wish the Los Angeles Times had not sacrificed some great content that really made me confront some crucial issues in the world. I am sad to say good-bye to one of my favorite Sunday morning activities: actually sitting with well-researched, written, and argued opinion pieces that could grant me interesting and different perspectives on the world around me, pieces that could challenge my beliefs and make me think about the truly newsworthy events of the week. I guess I am just going to have to rely on actual blogs for that now.