The divorce seems kind of unfortunate only because of the cute story about V's last name: it's a madeup combinanation of his and his wife's pre marriage names. It was supposed to be some warm fuzzy gesture of their commitment to equality.
Oops, well....
DoreneC
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 7:05 PM, Dennis Claxton <ddclaxton at earthlink.net>wrote:
> At 06:27 PM 11/10/2008, Doug Henwood wrote:
>
> [LA'nos - is he this bad?]
>>
>
>
> A stiff prick has no conscience and in Villaraigosa's case no political
> sense either. This isn't the first time. He was ok in the state assembly
> but he got into the same hot water then. It took a while to make a comeback
> but he's very good at getting elected.
>
>
> As the LA Weekly put it a couple months ago, "the mayor spends most of
>> his working day flying in and out of town, holding staged press
>> conferences,
>>
>
>
> Can't argue with that but I would point out that the LA Weekly sucks now.
> The only reason to pick it up is to see what movies are playing or what's
> at the galleries. One of their big new editors is Jill Stewart, who was
> part of the local hatchet job on Mike Davis a few years back. Harold
> Meyerson left in 2006 and says he quit just in time. In his last LA Weekly
> column Meyerson praised the Los Angeles labor movement and particularly
> Miguel Contreras, who was a longtime pal of Villaraigosa but who died just
> as Villaraigosa was set to become mayor. Better Contreras in D.C. right now
> than the mayor.
>
> When the LA Weekly ran a cheap shot front cover story about Contreras's
> death, Meyerson wrote that he'd left the paper just in time. Here's
> Meyerson on Contreras:
>
> http://www.laobserved.com/archive/2005/05/meyerson_tribut.php
>
> Here's an email from Meyerson to the LA Weekly and after this is a link to
> a Nation article on changes at the paper:
>
> http://www.laobserved.com/archive/2006/10/dear_kids_meyerson_sad_ab.php
>
> Hey, kids - Looks like I'm gone at precisely the right moment. With the
> Contreras piece, we've crossed a line. Well, actually, you've crossed a
> line. I'm gone.
>
> The Weekly is now its own sub-genre of newspaper: the guilty-conscience
> tabloid. A real tabloid would have headlined this week's cover piece, "Labor
> Boss Croaks in Hooker's Arms!" A non-tabloid wouldn't have run the piece,
> and certainly not on the cover. A guilty-conscience tabloid runs the folk
> art that Miguel inspired at the time of his death, and seeks to justify
> running the piece by equating it with the biographies on Martin Luther
> King's private life. But there's a crucial difference.
>
> King's private life had public consequences: the FBI monitored it and
> threatened King with exposure. But we're not covering Miguel's private life;
> we're covering his private death, and it's hard for me to see how the
> circumstances of his death had public consequences. The fact of his death,
> as Dave rightly notes, had huge consequences, but nowhere in the piece does
> Dave really raise the question of whether the circumstances of his death
> caused the fact of his death. My understanding -- correct me if I'm wrong --
> is that the piece was rushed on to the cover, that another story was yanked
> to make room for it.
>
> Perhaps Dave could have drawn a connection that would have justified the
> play the piece received. But as it stands, he didn't.
>
> Continuing after the jump, Meyerson complains the Weekly has lost its way
> and urges staffers to rise above the coming New Times-ization of the paper.
> (For those who don't know, New Times bought Village Voice Media which owned
> the Weekly, and NT editorial guru Michael Lacey was said to be in town this
> week holding meetings.)
>
> I acknowlege at the git-go that Miguel was a friend of mine, a friendship
> that grew out of the circumstances I talk about in my final column this
> week: that for many years, the Weekly and the local labor movement, once
> Miguel became its leader, were embarked on parallel missions. Whatever may
> be said of the Weekly today, nobody not at the Weekly, and I suspect few
> people at the Weekly either, view its mission as fostering a particular kind
> of political, social and economic change in Los Angeles. The paper's
> decision, for the first time since forever, not to run endorsements makes
> that even clearer. That's unfortunate, but it's no disgrace.
>
> But becoming a tabloid in the New Times model is absolutely a disgrace. The
> New Times model churns out "gotcha" news stories, it snipes at an
> undifferentiated establishment, it makes little effort to understand larger
> social forces at work in a city (that would require local deviations from
> the model), it has a weakness for rants. It produces columns like "L.A.
> Sniper," in the Jill Stewart mode of reducing commentary to drive-by
> shootings.
>
> All this is a ridiculous misuse of the exceptional editorial and
> reportorial talent at the Weekly. Dave, I should make clear, is an
> exceptionally gifted reporter, and his piece this week displays all his
> usual virtues. The problem with the piece is that it's conceptually tabloid
> stuff -- sensationalism for its own sake, since, again, it does not even
> seriously address whether the circumstances of Miguel's death were in any
> way causal of his death. And the cover line -- encasing the prostitute
> reference within the United-Farm-Workers-esque folk art -- would make the
> guilty-conscience tabloid hall of fame, if one existed.
>
> I have no idea what if any role Mike Lacy [sic] and the New Times folks
> played in this, but anyone who spends a nano-second looking at the paper
> understands that New Times template is already in place, and I know from
> countless conversations that editorial staffers live in fear of getting the
> ax if they deviate from it. That's sad for the city, sad for the paper, and
> sad for those of you who work there and are in no financial position to
> leave (a position I understand very well). You're all better than that, and
> you know it.
>
> My understanding with the editors was that I could do individual pieces
> from time to time. Now that I've read the Contreras story and discovered
> that it's the cover, however, I'm afraid I don't want to do that any more. I
> regret that, not just because I deeply like to write about Los Angeles and
> California, but also because I like working with you all very much. But this
> is not the Weekly any of us signed on to (unless there are some new hires I
> don't know, which there probably are), and most certainly not the paper that
> some of us hoped would help remake Los Angeles into a more humane and
> equitable city, and have fun doing it along the way.
>
> Sorry, kids -- I'm gone.
>
> Best of luck,
> Harold
>
> http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070716/wiener/single
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>