On The L.A. Times Saying “Adios” To Liberal Columnist Robert Scheer

A new mini-firestorm is raging over the Los Angeles Times’ decision to show liberal columnist Robert Scheer the door. Here’s part of the newspaper’s explanation:

Assessing the merits of a column, like assessing the merits of a movie, is a subjective exercise, so readers can agree to disagree over the wisdom of our decision. It’s inaccurate, however, to ascribe ideological motives to our decision to stop running Scheer’s column.

Some readers have complained that The Times is conspiring to silence liberal voices on the Op-Ed page. Others have gone so far as to suggest that Scheer is being punished for opposing the war in Iraq. But that is hardly a badge of shame around here — the newspaper’s own editorial page opposed the decision to invade Iraq.

The truth is that we now publish more Op-Ed columnists — early in 2004 we featured only three regular columnists — than ever before, including more liberal voices (and conservative ones) than ever before. It’s also true that some of our columnists are not easily labeled on either side of the ideological divide, which we think is healthy. The goal, as always, remains to offer readers a lively exchange of opinions from across the political spectrum.

Some on the Right suggest this is a victory — getting him off the paper. Some on the Left suggest he’s being booted because of his views, because Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity don’t like him and have blasted him on occasion. Some on the Left also say it’s part of the paper’s effort to get more conservative readership.

Frankly, as someone who worked on newspapers belonging to two major chains (Knight-Ridder and Copley) and who also was nearly a full-time contributor for two prominent newspapers while based overseas (the Chicago Daily News and the Christian Science Monitor) I have to say: I take the L.A. Times at its word on this one.

This may not be as ideologically interesting to point the following out but here are some facts of life about newspapers:

• Like in any corporation, when a new guy comes in at the top he likes to put HIS people in place. It’s hard to show that you’re making a dent in shaking things up if you keep all of the same people. If the LA Times axed Scheer and didn’t replace him with another liberal columnist, or the paper basically ran only conservatives, then the argument about the paper targeting him for his ideas might hold water. He was hired before the present publisher came on board.

• Papers DO change their columnists and — in the most delicate operation of all — occasionally drop comic strips. Even papers change.
• An editor (or publisher) may not like X columnist because of stylistic conflicts, not necessarily due to their ideas. We’ll never know but perhaps some bigwig just didn’t like the way Scheer laid out his ideas and came to his conclusions. We go through the same thing HERE. We’ve gotten emails we read and delete, one or two we’ve angrily answered — and several that disagreed with us but were so well written and presented that we proudly ran them as Guest Voice columns.
• Internal newspaper dynamics matter. To be crude (we’ll do it once), Scheer also could have simply pissed off a powerful LATer… and it’s payback time because they’re trying to shake things up and this is an opportunity. It could be an irrational dislike, but it’s enough in the world of newspapers.
• Newspapers only have X-amount of space for their “newshole.” If there was a desire to move X in, then someone also had to go.

None of this is to criticize Scheer (I get the LAT and my alma mater the San Diego Union and enjoy reading the Times each day). None of this denies that there is a possibility some of it had to do with his ideas.

But there are OTHER CONCERNS in the corporate world of newspapering — and, as the LAT notes, it is on the same wavelength on some of its editorial page stances as Scheer and it most certainly does offer a buffet of ideas on its editorial page.

So people on the Right and Left can have fun with their theories — but the reality may simply involve good, old fashioned corporate concerns.

We would all like to be perceived as martyrs, rather than easily replaceable widgets. But no one is irreplaceable or The New Flavor Of The Month forever. Especially on newspapers.