Kinsley Kiboshed

You heard it here first...sort of. A few days ago when I was commenting on the departure of L.A. Times Editor John Carroll, I speculated that the next to go might very well be the paper's editorial and opinion director Mike Kinsley.

So today it's official. After barely a year into his tenure, Kinsley is out. Or at least Kinsley says he will be changing jobs very soon.

I'm certainly not the only guy who has noticed that Kinsley drew a lot more attention to himself than to any particular changes he made in the editorial sections of the Times.

The old Sunday Opinion section was only two weeks retooled into something more ambiguous called Currents. Kinsley experimented with an ill-fated "wiki-torial" that wound up getting defaced online. He demonstrated a certain amount of ingenuity in reworking the Times' unsigned editorials. But he has simultaneously helped import some very mushy conventional columnists onto the Times op-ed page including Margaret Carlson, Jonathan Chait and Kinsley himself.

Indeed, as Kevin Roderick notes in the above link, Kinsley may continue at the Times as a columnist. Not the best choice, frankly. Kinsley is clearly a smart guy -- but, in fact, he's a smart-aleck. He seems committed to very little except some editorial gimmickry -- his columns always a degree or two removed from authentic human passion and drama.

In the end, the changes promised by Kinsley were far more along the lines of style rather than substance. It was encouraging that the Times countenanced what experimentation there was. Now let the Tribune Company suits and new editor Dean Baquet come up with a replacement who's willing to push the limits of content, not just form.

A curious side-note: One of my trusty colleagues, Alan Miitelstaedt of L.A. Weekly, took a few minutes to scratch around Kinsley's background. A simple Lexis check showed that Kinsley and his wife Patricia purchased a Seattle-area home last year for...um...$6.2 million.

I don't begrudge the Kinsley's their human comfort. Kinsley made some big bucks when he worked for CNN and his wife is the director of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Nor do I engage in knee-jerk judgment of people by their addresses or assets. But... but... when your wife works for the richest man in the U.S. and you are bunkered in a $6 million Seattle lakeside mansion, are you really as well-positioned as possible to manage the popular opinion section of an L.A. newspaper? No cheap populism intended, but it seems that if you want to fully understand the collective public consciousness and gestalt, you might -- under those circumstances-- be starting at a certain disadvantage.

That's all moot now, of course. Within a few months Kinsley's role will be formally changed, his responsibilities lessened, and he wil havel much more time to amusingly ponder his multi-million dollar lakeside view.

Comments

[Michael Turmon]

One of these gambits that lacked bite and interest was the promise to of the LAT editorial page to evolve a position on tough issues like immigration by incorporating feedback from an ongoing series of editorials. On the one hand, this sounds like a high-minded way to address tough issues.

But the problem is, I don't care to read a series of hemming and hawing editorials as some kind of official LAT position is elaborated and refined. The drama of watching editor Kinsley refine a position is not the kind of drama I have in mind! With all the hypocrisy and outright lying by the people currently running the country, there are more compelling uses of column inches out there.

[天声人語]

"...his columns always a degree or two removed from authentic human passion and drama."

For that we have Christopher Hitchens and his messages in a bottle. And you, of course, as shown by your rousing animadversion on Cuban matters. Soon people will be yelling from their windows "I'm mad as hell and I won't take it any more!"

As for "I don't begrudge the Kinsley's [sic] their human comfort", methinks the man, etc.

P.S. Just kidding, Marc. Keep up the good work.

[Jim Rockford]

The big problem with Kinsey (you nailed it Marc) is that he's not local, and therefore can't get. I wish the man well personally with his health and all, which in fairness to him may have limited his ability to be down here or move.

However, LAT Editorial hasn't covered enough local issues.

Underpolicing, crime in LA, cozy developer-city hall links, toxic gases at Vista del Ray, transportation and gridlock, schools all deserved day in and day out treatment from local people with opinions and expertise from a variety of viewpoints. Warren Olney did that every day on Which Way LA and I have a suggestion to the LAT/Tribune bosses:

HIRE WARREN! That's all you need to say. Or you Marc. You'd get local voices in there.

[Robert Fiore]

Kinsley had a lot of fresh ideas when he edited The New Republic, and it seemed that Slate rehashed those ideas (with a lot of the same writers), and in the Times he just ran them into the ground.

We've got to stop being so impressed by marquee names. (Going back a long way) Jonathan Miller, Andre Previn, Kinsley . . .

[Robert Fiore]

Meanwhile at Slate, Christopher Hitchens is turning into Richard Nixon: If what you're doing is against the law, repeal the law.

[jim hitchcock]

Great idea, Jim, but Olney would never do it. The man just has too much integrity, as he showed when he left local television news behind.

[reg]

For folks with a continuing fascination for Hitchens, scroll down this link to Michael Kazin's book review. Captures some of the apparent contradictions and ironies, while giving "the devil" his due.

http://www.dissentmagazine.org/

I don't know what to say about that latest Slate piece - it somehow combines the perspectives of Alexander Cockburn and Douglas Feith into a unified field theory countering Plamegate. Also chock full of blatant falsehoods.

[John Mc]

It's hatin' on Hitch time again.

"Meanwhile at Slate, Christopher Hitchens is turning into Richard Nixon: If what you're doing is against the law, repeal the law."

He supported repealing that law, before any kind of plame-gate occured, as did the 'left'. The law makes it easier for the CIA to cover up whatever kind of low-down dealings they are involved in. The 'left' opposed the law on those grounds, but have now conveniently forgotten that reasoning when it suits them.

The article (which wasn't bad) from reg's link calls Hitchens 'the once radical polemicist'. How is he not a radical anymore? by supporting the Iraq war? Everything about the invasion of Iraq WAS radical. His position WAS the radical position.

[rosedog]

I actually always enjoyed Kinsley, particularly the unsigned (but always recognizable) pieces. And most of the editors I know who worked under him, found him pretty good.

All that said, I (for once) agree entirely with Rockford on any and all counts:

**Warren is the best of the best of the best. (But as Hitchcock said, he wouldn't do it. Besides, we'd lose him from local radio. Cool idea, though.)

**I too am driven utterly mad by the lack of coverage of schools, in particular, in or out of the editorial pages. Not that the other issues you flag aren't every bit as important. But the lack of a real education beat is simply scandalous, to my way of thinking.

**You know, that last is an interesting and insightful suggestion. Marc'd be a terrific Op Ed pages editor. I know this for certain because I've worked with him as an editor and, in that capacity, he's an excellent and innovative generalist with a firm, nonpartisan grasp on local and national issues (and a really good phone book), which is what the Times needs.

Uh....Marc?

[Robert Fiore]

Personally I think there ought to be a law against unelected thugs ratting out undercover agents for crass political purposes, but that's my own persnickety point of view.

[reg]

"Everything about the invasion of Iraq WAS radical. His position WAS the radical position."

Interesting...it struck me as the missionary position.

If a plan for Iraq hatched by the likes of Dick Cheney is "radical" it's the radicalism of fools. Hitchens' is Max Schactman Redux, but with more flair. And of course, in John Mc's view, this defense of Rove, which echoes the likes of John Gibson on FOX, is also "radical".

I knew there was a reason why I'm not much impressed by armchair "radicals". Actually, in Hitchens case, "armchair" is unfair. He's of a higher order - the "jetlagged" radical.

From James Rule's article on Iraq in that same issue of Dissent I linked:

"The United States knew all along that it had the might to smash the old regime. No one in charge seems to have thought of what would be required to ensure that the wounds inflicted by the invasion would not bleed indefinitely.

So, more than two years after the invasion, no one knows what even the immediate future will bring in terms of political evolution and human suffering... A situation marked by such deep uncertainties of good outcomes should never be the laboratory for fantastical military and political experiments of the sort America has launched. The audacity of this experiment, so much admired by Thomas L. Friedman, is a synonym for irresponsible game-playing with human lives."

[rosedog]

And speaking of the LA Times Op Ed section...and Plamegate...(and the annoying and increasingly unbelievable scrambling on the part of Hitchens and the like, while we're at it).... Here're the opening couple of 'graphs of this morning's editorial:

*******

"Scandals metastasize. That is the pattern since Watergate. What starts out looking like a small, isolated incident gradually reveals itself to be part of a larger abuse of power. Meanwhile, an unraveling coverup adds new elements. Is that happening now with the scandal over White House leaks of the identity of a CIA agent?

"Some folks say that as we learn more, the scandal is getting smaller, not larger. Valerie Plame was a CIA functionary commuting openly to agency headquarters, not a spy working behind enemy lines. The law against revealing the identities of intelligence agents is complicated and probably wasn't broken in this case. And the story line gets muddier: Journalists may have revealed Plame's identity to White House honchos.

"We don't buy it...."

************

Read on, gentle blogsters. The LA Times folks don't pull no punches this morning.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-rove27jul27,0,3614014.story?coll=la-news-comment-editorials

[reg]

Incidentally, I don't remember the context of the phrase "ex-radical" in that article but Kazin's main point is precisely that Hitchens' "radicalism" runs deep and is always on show in his reverence for figures like Leon Trotsky, his enthusiasm for engagement in a global crusade and his contempt for anti-war sentiment rooted in moderation or national interest.

Surely anyone who was "exhilirated" by 9/11 as Hitchens claimed he was ("Here we are then, I was thinking, in a war to the finish between everything I love and everything I hate. Fine.") deserves a place in the camp of "radicals".

Would it be cheap to suggest that bin Laden is also in that camp? Yeah, I guess it would be.

[Mark Schubb]

"Marc'd be a terrific Op Ed pages editor..." Sure he'd be GREAT at it, but that is an AWFUL idea. That job would have grave consequences for fishing the incoming high tides. It could even create painful conflicts for Marc about not leaving the table while the cards are running hot.

Frought with danger. Just say no.

[John Mc]

The Iraq war, right or wrong, inasfar as it is an attempt to remove the most brutally and nakedly fascist regime on this planet and start the country on the path to democracy, is radical. His views are radical in the sense that he favors revolutionary changes in conditions and institutions. The changes he supports are founded in his love for civilization and his opposition to fascism (though he can be prone to some contradictions, like anybody can, i question his fondness for trotsky too). Now, if you want to say that Bin Laden is in the same camp as a radical as well, sure, you can say that, but like you said, it would be cheap, and dishonest. The article didn't say 'ex-radical', it said 'the once radical polemicist' as in past tense. He still is both of those, although some of his more recent writings (especially defending rove, yecchhh) don't quite measure up to some of his past stuff.

Just because guys like Cheney, whose sole motivations were probably concerned with oil and power, hatched the Iraq plan, doesn't mean that Hitchens' support doesn't come from his radical roots. From the very beginning, Hitchens gave the most persuasive argument for the war, and it centered around human rights and his solidarity with liberation efforts of third world people. You also can't blame Hitchens for a game plan that somehow left out the chapter on post-saddam occupation.

I sure hope nothing i say ever echoes the likes of John Gibson on fox. I actually made no comment on the defense of the slimey Rove (who i wouldn't mind seeing spending at least a night in a real dont-drop-the-soap jail, or is that being too radical?). I just commented on the gist of the article about the stupid law that is there to protect the secret government of the CIA. He's right, it's a bad law, and it's kind of funny that the anti-war left doesn't think so anymore. He made some other assertions that I wasn't so sure about, but i agreed with his basic point.

[Jim Rockford]

To me the problem with the Times is not enough local coverage, so the solution is obvious: get guys with lots of local experience to run the LAT Editorial, and yes Senior Editorship too.

LAT is too important to become the journalistic equivalent of the Frank McCourt Dodgers, Marc or Warren are needed (your city calls you!)

Agree Rose that schools are our #1 issue, particularly the shameful dis-investment in the inner city schools coupled with anti-education attitudes in the community. Sunlight is needed on this issue.

LAT editorial today on Rove ignores the big issues: Fitzgerald is obviously pursuing the Martha Stewart lying to investigators or perjury charges, and that MAY include the Media. We already know that Cooper's testimony in the Grand Jury (he called Rove) contradicts his Time story (Rove called him) and a whole nest of conflict of interest (Cooper/his wife, senior Hillary and former Bill staffer); Wilson and Plame; possibly others. Russert, Novak, Pincus and others connections to Wilson and possibly Plame are unexplored, as well as political activity at the CIA to unseat a President who was in the process of cleaning house of those who disagreed with his basic policy. Don't forget possibly criminally lax handling of secret memos on Air Force One by Colin Powell and subordinates. There could be indictments for everyone (including Kerry for outing a CIA agent during the Bolton hearings; Durbin and others for outing a "black" spy satellite program; and the NYT for outing the CIA airline transferring terrorist prisoners).

It's disappointing not to see the LAT criticize the Dems for handing the megaphone to Larry Johnson as Plame defender. Larry Johnson, remember him? Author of July 2001 "Declining Terrorist Threat" and quoted in 1999 on Frontline as saying "bin Laden talks a big game" about killing Americans but lacks the will or ability to do so and isn't a real threat. The political danger for the Dems in taking the line that terror is not real, Bush "punished" truth-teller Joe Wilson who bravely pointed out that Saddam was love and puppies is a disaster. Particulary as the Media is revealed as in bed literally with senior Dems and the nasty insider Washington politics gets sunlight shone on them. Since Bush is an outsider he generally benefits. These are all things that seem obvious, too bad LAT is just a Dem megaphone.

Bad too was the Parks editorial SUPPORTING in a mocking tone the Kelo decision. Yes let's take people's houses for Wal-Mart. That's a winner for Dems for sure. There was another one bashing Hillary's concerns over GTA game labeling. It's like reading the "lite" version of Daily Kos. LAT has a serious problem editorially, mostly a fixation on National politics on the Kossack line and the total neglect of pressing local issues.

[reg]

John Mc - I wasn't saying that you were echoing John Gibson, but that Hitchens with his "it was right of Rove - or whomever - to out Plame because Wilson is a lying blah-blah" does.

"You also can't blame Hitchens for a game plan that somehow left out the chapter on post-saddam occupation."

No - but you can blame him for supporting people who could hardly be expected to do the right thing and had an incredibly glib, triumphalist approach - not to mention dishonest. (I have to admit, even though I didn't support the war on the grounds it was being proposed and thought that the little matter of bin Laden and securing Afghanistan was more important, I've been amazed at how poorly the war was handled since the fall of Baghdad. Of course, the "Mission Accomplished" stunt was a pretty good clue as to the cluelessness that's driven this mess.)

As for how cheap the binLaden remark might be, were one to actually apply it, which of course I never would, there's something that sounds more than a bit familiar in the "a war to the finish between everything I love and everything I hate" rhetoric. If one were to be slightly less cheap than comparing that thinking to bin Laden's, one might go so far as to call it slightly mad in it's apocalyptic tone.

[reg]

On the OT - Kevin Drum has a good post up that addresses the Hitchens piece.

[Kevin Drum]

Hey, don't dump Chait in with that group of "mushy" columnists! He's pretty good. Have you been reading his stuff lately?

(Of course, he benefits from appearing on Fridays opposite Gelernter, who can make almost anyone look good. But still, Chait is surprisingly un-mushy in his LAT columns.)

[Mavis Beacon]

Nikki Finke has a new article on this and it's a stinker. I particularly resent this gem,

"If anything, Kinsley held Los Angeles in contempt as a third-rate city. That’s the only explanation for his much-derided decision to devote two full pages of Sunday Opinion to cartoons about the mayor’s race..."

Thoughtless and mean.

[Marc Cooper]

My view of Ms. Finke is well-known and quite public.

[richard lo cicero]

I thought Kinsley was a brilliant choice but then I saw him dumb down the section with cartoons and other ephemeria. Kinsley had a well known contempt for the "common man" see his book BIG BABIES and it got the best of him. Hey. I can think of worse places to live than Seattle!

[reg]

Nikke Finke: "Good riddance, Mikey. Don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out..."

I don't know much about LA or the vagaries of LA journalism. But I find Nikke Finke to be fascinating. One thing you have to say about this woman...she has an enormous amount of class. Or at least the appropriate amount for a "Hollywood" beat. To my everlasting shame, I can't help fantasizing a Roger Corman-produced "Gal Journos in Prison" flick in which Finke shares a cell with Judy Miller and the two scratch each others eyes out.

[Abbas-Ali Abadani]

I second Kevin Drum's defense of Jonathan Chait. Neither him nor Michael Kinsley are "mushy" and "conventional"; even though I strongly disagreed with Kinsley's "pish-posh" take on the Downing Street Memos.

Did anyone read Mark Danner's piece in the latest New York Review of Books?

[The_DC_Sniper]

53

"Nikki Finke has a new article on this and it's a stinker. I particularly resent this gem,

'If anything, Kinsley held Los Angeles in contempt as a third-rate city. That’s the only explanation for his much-derided decision to devote two full pages of Sunday Opinion to cartoons about the mayor’s race...'

Thoughtless and mean."

Nikki is a jealous God. Do you really expect Her to tolerate the presence of Pharisees and Scribblers in this holy City of Angels? The righteous shouldn't listen to False Pundits anyway-- they should follow the Word of Nikki; for those who do not follow the LAW (that's the L.A. Weekly to you heathens) will die by the LAW!

"I find Nikki Finke to be fascinating."

This is Good News and there may still be time left to save yourself. All you need do is denounce the False Pundits whose scribblings you have followed in the past and maybe you will be left alive when Nikki flames the world to ash.

As always,
Hail Nikki!

53