Gary Dretzka

Dretzka is a columnist for Movie City News and a former correspondent for the Chicago Tribune.

Never mind that you didn't bother to get my side of this story. Never mind that this all-around self-justifying genius never bothered to tell me that the piece was rejected before he blared this self-righteous and self-justifying "disclosure" to you while calling my work into question without citing any specific flaws in my allegedly "deeply flawed" piece.

If this all around muckraker has muck to rake against Jay Levin, that is his right, but why use his obvious animosity to him to drag me into his muck or the ongoing soap opera at City Beat.

Yes, Jay asked me to write because my film "In Debt We Trust" (InDebtWe Trust.org)--released in a final updated form in 2007, not 2006-- was being promoted as important by KPFK. One of my concerns has been that when the film played in LA, none of the press there, mainstream or "alternative" bothered to review it or write about it. The issue was thought too obscure. Now its at the center of a global economic meltdown.

The issues I raised, considered "alarmist" by some, later led to the ongoing financial crisis. That fact that it was ignored does not make my reporting inaccurate. If anything I understated the calamity to come even as I was exposing subprime lending, a subject that most of our "all around" muckrakers ignored. Others have called me prescient but not the former news editor. He knew better!

I have since written a book "PLUNDER: Investigating Our Economic Calamity" (Cosimo) that brings this story up to date. It also critiques the role of the press and attitudes such as the ones expressed to you but not to me by the AAB (All Around Bullshitter.)

As for the piece, it did have local stats on foreclosures and mounting debt from LA when I submitted it right after the Oscars. All of the data was then updated prior to publication. Levin did a first edit. I then updated it with an excellent editor at City Beat I went to the top expert on credit cards in the country.

I spent months begging to get paid.

My visit to cover students getting into hock in Rochester way back then (ha) is unfortunately not dated. It describes a problem that is still with us. It was certainly new to people who didn't see the film who unfortunately outnumber those who did.

Had super journalist Mittelstaedt (with his confusion over what's newsworthy only being what's new) had his way, the issues I raised would never have been published at all as if they are unimportant. Look around man,

I was treated like shit by he and his then editor who promised to get back to me and just strung me along, an experience that every freelancer will recognize. That's why I don't do this sort of thing often for pathetic fees. I prefer to blog on Mediachannel.org or post on Huffington Post. Your readers can decide for themselves how "flawed" my work is.

Danny Schechter
Editor, Mediachannel.org

Until a few months ago I was a life-long subscriber to The Times. Even when I lived out of Southern California, I kept up my subscription. And when I came back to L.A. and was experiencing a period when I had to be a lot more frugal than is currently the case, I kept up the subscription. And even as the coverage started to go downhill, as the paper became thinner, as in-depth reporting became more and more rare, as investigative reporting to a large extent became a casualty of the Chicago-driven management, I kept up my subscription.

Because The Times was an integral part of my daily life: it was THE place where I could get real news, written by top-notch reporters; it was the entity which I looked to to help me understand what was happening in the city, particularly in terms of local issues and local politics; it was the main vehicle for the public to be able to have eyes and ears watching out for the "public good" and fulfilling its role as part of the "Fourth Estate."

Finally, though, earlier this year, I had had enough. The paper had gone downhill so much that I pulled back to a Sunday-only subscription. This was a big decision for me -- a news junkie, someone with many friends (both past and current) at The Times and to whom I felt a sense of loyalty that had kept me from not wanting to disrespect them in any fashion. But, enough was enough, so I took the big step. No more daily LAT. Yes, I would continue to look at the web site, but would focus on finding most of my local news coverage elsewhere. While also continuing to hope for a turnaround that would be of benefit to all parties: the public, the reporters, the owners.

At that point, I thought things had gone downhill so much that the situation could only improve, not worsen. Clearly, I was wrong. What is happening now is the ultimate insult. It is an insult to the hard-working reporters at the paper and an insult to the public that a paper of this size and (former?) prestige is supposed to serve. Less news, with fewer experienced reporters; more focus on "get it done quickly" and "get it done cheaply" than on any kind of substance; more focus on Hollywood and so-called "celebrity journalism"... And this is how they propose to help turn things around: a newspaper that provides less news? And that this will somehow bring in more readers and more advertisers and thus make more money? Huh!? Duh???

How very sad. How very disappointing.

Emma Schafer
Los Angeles Current Affairs Forum

Regarding the possible sale of the Los Angeles Times building:

I hope Zell is selling naming rights. I'm looking forward to the new Sit-N-Sleep Times Building.

You're killing me, Sammy!

Mark L. Hammond

John Shannon

Nick Faitos
Santa Cruz

Indeed. I should have used the full name, George Palmer Putnam, that Mr. Amelia Earhart was known by as a writer and publisher. — KR

 I must take issue with the recent Native Intelligence column in which Jenny Price takes some broad swipes at Malibu and its residents. Did she miss? Let me count the ways.

Her opening sentence refers to the Malibu City Council’s vote to “ban camping on many public lands. . .” In fact, only three sites were at issue: Santa Monica Mountain Conservancy land in Corral Canyon, where the most recent fire started, Ramirez Canyon, and Charmlee Wilderness Park, which is owned by the City of Malibu and not the Conservancy. She adds, rather breezily, that as far as she knew it was “the first official measure the city has taken to prevent future fires.” In fact, the City has had a fire prevention program in conjunction the LA County Fire Department almost since Malibu became a city. It combines educational programs with brush-clearing efforts in inhabited areas.

The fact that the L.A. Times reported that 3 percent of all wildfires in all of California are caused by campfires is hardly reason to ignore the risk, especially since few of the other activities she cites take place in these contested areas, or will not unless they move construction crews in to build the camp sites.

And the next time her North Carolina friends ask her why “rich people in Malibu” continue to live in places where fires are inevitable,” she can ask them why rich people in North Carolina build houses on the barrier islands where they are prone to hurricane damage.

The drainage pipes she refers to were built by the county and the state of California long before Malibu became a city. Certainly, big houses on the beach don’t help the environment, although the residents tend to be better day-to-day stewards of the beach than some visitors are. But that certainly isn’t a serious argument for keeping the public off the beaches, and nobody I have known in twenty years of living here has ever suggested such a thing.

She accuses Malibu of having some of the state’s dirtiest beaches, but that dubious honor is actually spread fairly evenly up and down the coast. Interestingly, the one beach that ranks in the top (bottom?) ten is Surfrider Beach in Malibu, which is a public beach and doesn’t have houses on it. A second Malibu beach that got dishonorable mention a couple of years ago was at Paradise Cove, which is a gated community with some mobile homes. Unlike Broad Beach and other residential beaches, which have free access and free parking, it treats its beach as private and charges $25 for parking. Your regular correspondent, Veronique de Turenne regularly files pretty pictures from there of wildlife, sunsets and cute dogs on the beach (in violation of county ordinance, I’m afraid).

Price also refers to “notorious efforts just a few summers ago to re-engineer the tide line” which “created extensive environmental damage.” She is referring to Broad Beach and she has not the slightest proof that it was either the intent or effect of the homeowners’ attempted repairs of storm damage to “re-engineer the tide line.” If she had a better knowledge of the natural movement of sand on the beach, she would know that such a thing is impossible in any case. Nor is there any evidence that there was any extensive or lasting environmental damage stemming from those actions. She must find it ironic that some of the biggest contributors to Heal the Bay, the nonprofit that monitors the above-mentioned dirty beaches, live on Broad Beach.

All of this just to make the case once again that people who live in Malibu are bad sorts who want to keep out the great unwashed. Sorry, but it isn’t true. The camping issue is NOT an access issue, however much she would like it to be. Thousands of people come to enjoy Malibu’s parks and beaches every year (even Broad Beach) and there are already some 1,300 camp sites in safer venues close to the ocean from Mugu through Malibu. This is a dispute about proposed camp sites in three fire-prone and environmentally sensitive places near human habitation, Corral Canyon, Ramirez Canyon, and Charmlee Wilderness Park, a city park prickly with deed restrictions and ESHA regulations.

Most of the people I know would agree with me that the Santa Monica Mountain Conservancy has done great things in rescuing wilderness areas from the developer’s bulldozer. And sometimes we wish that the planning commission and the California Coastal Commission would put some brakes on development. But this time, we think Joe Edmiston has gone a bit too far. And any argument that relies on insinuations, exaggerations, half-truths and downright falsehoods is not likely to change our minds.

Marshall Lumsden
Malibu

Jenny Price stands by the accuracy of her post — ed.

  Thanks for the comments on the recent column in the L.A. Times by David Lazarus touting DOA regional transit plans. Damien Goodmon already had a write-up on his "vision" in May , so why does this guy with no credentials and a plan that is going nowhere deserve so many additional column inches? And with his recent grandstanding in re Expo line grade crossings at Dorsey High his credibility is about zero among transportation activists. I first saw Brian C. Brooks' monorail along flood control channels proposal when he was touting it at the 2006 Alternative Car Expo; it is an idea so bad it doesn't deserve even cursory attention, much less being treated as a legitimate proposal.

It is sad the Times seems DOA on transportation and its nexus with land use. There is a debate about the future of our region going on and it is a disgrace the leading media voice in the area isn't involved, either in its news coverage or opinion pages. The recent blast my colleague Kymberleigh Richards aimed at the Times I think is dead on: "The Times changes its transportation beat reporters so much, I’m not convinced anyone gets up to speed to know what they’re talking about."

Dana Gabbard
Executive Secretary
Southern California Transit Advocates

 Wow -- this post is so timely in my life right now. Just this week, I decided to stop watching television news because of all the attention afforded to OJ, Britney Spears and other inane celebrities.

Every morning, I would turn on KNBC to watch the local early news, then watch the "Today Show." That ended on Monday. I was so disgusted by the amount of time spent on these people who have no effect on our lives. The "Today Show" spent the first half-hour (or 21 minutes) devoted to OJ and Britney -- the first-half hour is supposed to be for hard news. I used to only listen to NPR in the car, but no more. NPR is now my main source of non-printed news.

I used to work in television news and still have friends at KNBC. I often voice my complaints about the direction of the news and they usually agree, but say their hands are tied. So, I was pleased to hear Bob Long's comments about tabloid coverage in news. But I'm sure if I watch tonight's news, I will see some celebrity or "caught on tape (in another state)" lead the broadcast.

Thank you for including this post.

Nadine Ono

 Makes Bob Long’s comments last week about the relative ignorance (semi-literate was his term, I believe) of the younger generation of newspeople seem prescient, no? The spirits of Murrow, Sevareid and H.V. Kaltenborn must be moaning. If anyone doubts that this unfathomable lack of everyday knowledge is the norm, just watch Jay Leno’s “dummies in the street” interviews (Jaywalking) each week.

I think I’ll go mix a stiff Scotch and water.

Cheers,

Michael J. Furtney
Los Angeles

 I find it interesting that Bob Long and perhaps other news directors don't seem to get the picture. Maybe they are too close to the problems and issues surrounding the TV news meltdown and simply don't notice. The problems with TV news can be discovered just by watching the local network news programs. They spend too much time, money and effort chasing meaningless stories such as Paris Hilton, etc, and not enough time on the real issues affecting all of us here in L.A.

Also, why do the local news directors send out reporters to stand in a neighborhood when a story has taken place when the reporter doesn't interview anyone about the story? The reporter is there for what reason? It doesn't add anything to the story, and seems like a waste of the station's resources.

The local networks will not change because they fear change and stick to the same old formula which no longer works. The local networks need to get their heads out of the sand and look around to see the changing landscape.

William Richardson
Van Nuys

 As dismaying as the lack of knowledge on the part of the Channel 2/9 reporter, it pales to the horribly disappointing Sept. 6 NY Times 2008 Olympics story that included a statement that FDR had gone to the Berlin Olympics in 1936 and met with Hitler, based on an assertion from Dana Rohrabacher of all people. (It was quickly corrected the next day with an italicized "not" included for emphasis.) How is it possible that any New York Times reporter (or editor) could not know that Roosevelt never met with Hitler, indeed as President never traveled outside the United States until Cabablanca in 1943 (if you overlook his Nova Scotia rendezvous with Churchill in June 1941)? Any such FDR-Hitler meeting would still be resonating in contemporary conversation, not to mention history books and war-themed movies. Lack of historical knowledge among reporters at any TV station is probably a sine qua non these days, but at the hallowed New York Times?

David Smollar

 What is killing TV news is the empty indulgences of news broadcasts. "Happy Talk" news began in my old hometown, New York City, and it has been down-hill since then. Stop the dumb jokes and juvenile chatter.

Kids News put local newscasts to shame. When I want to be entertained I look at entertainment shows. I want to know what is happening in my community, my country, the world. Stop behaving as if we are having a drink or out barbequing. I'm not going to watch because you try to be funny. You insult my intelligence when you believe I cannot pay attention without your gimmickry and foolishness. Also, stop grinning. When you are told you must smile it becomes unnatural - a grin. You do not have to smile [grin] to look pleasant and be believable. When there is a justifiable amusing segment, so be it.

I once saw a piece where the field reporter could not contain himself when giving the report; the anchors could not stop laughing; one of them could not even return to the air until later in the broadcast, and those of us tuning in at home were falling apart because the report was hilarious. These instances you can understand.

I encourage news directors and producers to go back and look at the newscasts of more that 35 to 40 years ago and see how dignified and eloquent the broadcasts were. Vanilla you say? Then be satisfied to lose your industry. Quality can be diminished, not destroyed, but mediocrity implodes. You will not hear them utter "hey" or "you guys" [unless referring to males] or, "there's two...." These newspeople were wordsmiths. Trash TV and the Internet are destroying quality newscasts, because when profit is paramount nothing remains sacred. Not even the English language.

Clayton Warner

 I believe, in your description of the conversation with the air head reporter, that you intended to refer to the robber as a "perp," as in perpetrator instead of "prep."

Tracy Taft

[Indeed. It's in the original blog item I picked up. Thanks - ed.]

 As a source of gossip, half truths, lies, slander, unfounded speculation and general lazy-ass foolishness, LA Observed remains invaluable.

Comes the news flash that three writers have, or will soon, depart the LA Weekly. To LA Observed, these are not matters of opportunity but signs of darkening skies.

Perhaps a little perspective would help.

LA Observed initially observed that the Weekly's editor, Laurie Ochoa, only kept her job because her husband was one of our talented writers. [Uh, not exactly - ed.] This sort of sexist/racist speculation is the kind of nightsoil that only a blogger could get away with. In the real world, such insulting drivel would get someone punched in the nose.

More recently LA Observed speculated that the Weekly was moving to a new office as part of a conspiracy that I had hatched. The proof: The new office is on the westside, and I stay on the west side when I'm in town.

The reality: I have not seen the new offices. I don't know where the new offices are. I was not consulted about the new offices or involved in the selection of the new offices. The new offices were chosen by the paper's publisher.

Admission: When I leave the desert to visit Los Angeles, I do occasionally stay in a westside hotel. To paraphrase Willie Sutton...that's where the ocean is.

LA Observed continues to keep posted on its archive the wildly erroneous opening section of The Nation's diatribe attacking us from pillar to post. The author of this "expose" wrote that we paid $400 million for Village Voice Media, which includes LA Weekly. Since the writer was off by a mere $400 million (the transaction was a merger with no cash involved. See -- literally--dozens of business articles at time of merger), even the politicized true believers who run The Nation admitted their mistake and removed this egregious section from their Web site. What does it say when LA Observed can not even meet the minimal standards of The Nation?

So now we return to the latest news that one of our columnists took a position with the Los Angeles Times. Well ... good for him. And another writer has a book deal that will take him to Mexico City... Frankly, I'm jealous.

The third writer left when he could not force the paper to give him a new editor. Your theory is that there is something wrong with the editor in question, Jill Stewart.

Nothing could be further from the truth, despite your repeated attempts to suggest such.

In general we do not allow writers to shop editors as if they were selecting produce. We attempt to have writers meet generally accepted principles of journalism. Mr. Anderson is a talented reporter, but his personal conduct towards his editor was so over the top -- borderline abusive on several occasions -- that he found himself apologizing for his behavior and, ultimately, looking for a new employer.

In a city like Los Angeles writers find books, scripts and other opportunities. At any newspaper you have the occasional clash.
You might have ascertained all of the above if you ever picked up the phone and talked to the targets of your biliousness.

Yours etc etc

Michael Lacey
Executive Editor, Village Voice Media

[I've spoken or corresponded with more than two dozen present and past LA Weekly staffers, but Editor Laurie Ochoa has never returned my calls and emails checking on facts through the years. - ed.]

 He was a lifeguard at Huntington Beach city beach 30 years ago. At least his story was a realistic portrayal of some of the things that lifeguards do. The media rarely gets it right when it comes to lifeguards and ocean sports. A few years ago an LAT reporter wrote that a man who fell off his yacht off Palos Verdes was rescued by lifeguards from the Baywatch lifeguard service. In reality, he was rescued by LA County lifeguards. The name of every boat in the LACO fleet is Baywatch along with name of its base (BW Cabrillo, BW Avalon, BW Isthmus, BW Malibu...). I still wonder if it is a common thing for journalists to not know the difference between TV and real life.

Twenty years ago I was a guard at HB City and worked with Panis and Lindo. Lindo, an African American, is the Chief Lifeguard now. I quit after I refused to do a rehearsed bit for the show Emergency 911. After that I worked summers for Los Angeles County. My point is that I was proud of being a lifeguard and thought my job was important. Maybe Lobdell's bit is cheesy to those in journalism, but at least he didn't misrepresent the facts in his lifeguard segment.

Mike Harnish

 "Wednesday's court session had hardly begun when former Hollywood madam Jody "Babydol" Gibson, who served 22 months in prison for running a prostitution ring, arrived. Heads snapped as the leggy blond entered the courtroom in a navy suit with a deeply plunging neckline and a trace of a skirt peeping from the hemline of her jacket, her stiletto heels clicking with each step."

Somewhere, I hope Hecht and MacArthur are hoisting a martini to L.A. Timesman Peter Y. Hong for that great 'graph. And someone should buy a drink for the editor that was hip enough to let it pass, or so asleep at the switch that he didn't notice. Either way, that's real newspaper reporting, godammit.

Rick Fleishman

 As long as I’ve known Jeff Wald – going back nearly 25 years now, soon after I started my own broadcasting career – he has functioned as the conscience of the business, the role model for a conscientious and responsible news executive in a industry where increasingly all the financial and professional incentives drive newsroom decision-making in a suicidal race to the bottom. He’s been an unfailingly courteous, decent and serious guy in an industry that could be most charitably described as alarmingly deficient in those qualities.

Ordinarily it would generate a cynical snicker to hear that a media executive suddenly left his job “to spend more time with his family” – but Jeff deserves nothing but praise and respect from his journalism colleagues and his viewers for making a difficult but honorable decision. I know I’m not alone in wishing him well in all of his future endeavors.

Joel Bellman