I thought this website was supposed to be a critique of the usually horrid journalism that is supposed to cover this city? What is this? Seriously? This website should be renamed warmandfluffycliffnotesonlosangelesatrociousjournalis.com. Who gives a rat's ass what Dick Riordan thinks about Schwarzie running for guv? You've got like 3 separate posts about this. Why?

Who cares what award some former LA Times publisher got or why a former NY Times staffer is quitting the biz and moving to Peru? Instead of politely discussing the rift between uber-clown Robert Scheer and Mickey Kaus or discussing guests on Patt Morrison's show, why not offer some critiquing of the way stories are covered, or rather, mostly not covered in LA? Something of substance? Anything?

Today, the LA Times wastes about 3k words on a woman who does not believe in God now because her son died in Iraq. Maybe in a city with one main street and a police chief everyone calls Bob, maybe there this is a big deal. But this is Los Angeles, and one grieving mother should be as newsworthy as a dying palm tree. More importantly, this website should be pointing this out. Oh, no, wait. You're too busy linking to Esquire articles about James Caan.

This site is as tepid as the LA journalism it purports to cover.

I would have to disagree with the above, because this site (as far as I know) never set out to critique LA journalism, just 'observe' it, hence the name.

You may be confusing it with the LA EXaminer.com website, which promised that kind of stuff and only rarely delivered. Now it seems the site is down for good.

This site does a very good job, it may not be the site you want, but maybe you should start your own. I would visit it, I too am fed up with tepid LA journalism. But since the mandate of this site (check the about page) is something else, your criticism is pointless.

Regarding what this Web site is "supposed" to be: This website is FREE, which means Kevin Roderick is FREE to post what interests him. You're also FREE to start your own Web site and post whatever interests you, Miss or Mr. Pissy -- surely, a better use of your valuable time than clacking out three paragraphs of huffy in the comments section here.

Hey "Fed up,"

How dare you insult the value of Mr. Roderick's work and then not have the courage to sign your own name?

For one, I give a fat rat's ass what Mr. Riordan thinks because it's a critical insight into the character of Arnold (Why would he "mislead" his reported close friends?) This is a pivotal point, imo, and I'm grateful to KR for staying on it.

About this site

This is a good time to explain why I mention Richard Riordan so much. This post was put up as a follow up to a previous item. More generally, he's a recurring topic here because he is an L.A. media player-in-waiting. If Riordan were just a disgruntled out-of-office politician, I'd probably never mention him.

Good name for the blog. I'll consider changing to it.

Good point about Huffy up there posting anonymously. What a weenie.

Every time I get annoyed with laobserved.com, I think of the alternatives (none), and I'm grateful to Kevin.

By the way, I'm also grateful for that nasty post starting the thread. I love that stuff! More slashing replies and rebuttals and verbal battles, please. Rip, rip away.

I agree. More splashing reptiles and herbal rattles.

I'm sorry Kevin, you can't change the name of this site. I have the trademark for warmandfluffycliffnotesonlosangelesatrociousjournalis.com (typo and all) and I have Fox's lawyers ready to sue anyone who tries to use that name. You'll just have to keep it LA Observed.

p.s. wait until you see the logo for the new site, warm, fluffy, cliffy, its awesome.

Sorry to get back on topic (sort of), but how can we be expected to believe anything Riordan says about this? Is it reasonable to expect that he would publicly say anything else? The way these politicians dance on rhetorical pinheads, apparently so afraid they will say something wrong (i.e what they really feel), it makes it that much harder to know when they are being honest and what they really believe. And how can we be expected to vote for someone we have such doubts about? As for the story, I have no difficulty finding some truth in what Riordan's "advisers" are saying. But like I said, who knows.

Being upstaged by Schwarzenegger in this way must be at the least a bit galling.

In my experience, yes it's reasonable to expect that the initial raw unguarded remark from a politician's camp is likely to be more true than the make-nice spin that follows. :)