Richard Riordan’s amusingly erratic career took a novel turn
last week when he announced a media venture far more quixotic than
his gubernatorial run: He plans to launch a Los Angeles newspaper
to challenge the dominance of the Los Angeles Times.
“This town needs a paper that’s going to put our city more into
perspective and show more respect for the city,” Riordan said to
The Associated Press. He wants an “alternative” voice to the
Times.
Riordan’s desire for a contrast to the Times is, of
course, welcome. But is he the man to supply it? The former Los
Angeles mayor got his clock cleaned in the California Republican
primary precisely because he ran as a barely-disguised Democrat in
the mold of Los Angeles Times liberalism.
Riordan says that he intends to wade into journalism as
“editor-in-chief” of this new paper. But it is hard to imagine
Riordan’s editorial page offering opinions any less politically
correct than those that appear in the pages of the Los Angeles
Times.
Still, Riordan’s distaste for the Times is
widely-shared. There are plenty of chagrined readers he could
easily pick off from the Times, even if his “alternative”
is low-powered.
Riordan should take heart in a recent admission from the Los
Angles Times’ editors that nearly 1,000 of its subscribers
pulled the plug on delivery for a day as a form of protest against
the paper’s Arafat-coddling coverage. Members of Los Angeles’s
Jewish community timed the protest to coincide with the 54th
anniversary of Israeli independence. Jewish readers also bombarded
the Times with an estimated 900 calls, officials at the
paper acknowledged.
Times Editor John Carroll defended the coverage. “Our
goal is to provide coverage that is both fair and complete,” he
said. “We feel that we serve our readership by covering all aspects
and points of view.”
“Some readers may take exception to specific articles, but I am
confident that, over time, careful readers of this newspaper will
get a full, balanced account of these unsettling events,” he
said.
Careful readers of the Times will only see an endless
stream of staggering bias. Take last Friday’s front-page love
letter to Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens. The
Times’ reporter David G. Savage got positively misty-eyed
over the liberal dinosaur.
“A Justice Born for the Ages,” the Times headlined the
article,
with the subhead: “John Paul Stevens turns 82 on Saturday and is
the oldest Supreme Court member. And he’s still one of the best
thinkers and writers on the bench.”
Stevens is not mean like his colleagues, reports Savage:
“Unfailingly courteous, Stevens never attacks the lawyers, mocks
their arguments or wisecracks at their expense.” Savage declares
him the Supreme Court’s “most polite justice,” gushing that he “has
the buoyant energy of a person decades younger, and he remains one
of the court’s quickest wits, sharpest thinkers and best
writers.”
Savage assures us that Stevens “was lauded from the start as
exceedingly smart, strictly nonpartisan and highly independent.”
Savage then calls Stevens’ pro-Gore dissent in the Florida recount
case “memorable.”
Stevens, Savage continues, isn’t lazy like his colleagues —
“Unlike his colleagues, he insists on writing his own opinions —
has “good health,” provides a “lively presence” on the bench,
speaks against the “conservative activism” of the other justices,
and offers “prescient” dissents. In short, Stevens is the second
coming of Solomon.
Why all the sucking up to Stevens? The Times is
terrified at the prospect of his retirement. “His good health and
energetic presence have enormous significance for the court and the
law. Stevens has been a key figure in the 5-4 majority that
supports the right to abortion. If he were to depart, President
Bush would have an opportunity to create an antiabortion majority,”
writes Savage.
Could you imagine the Times writing a piece about
Antonin Scalia titled “A Justice Born for the Ages”? Hardly. But
maybe Riordan’s rag will take a shot at it. Then again, the
Brentwood liberal probably won’t.
