THE WORLD IS HEALING: LA Times Appoints Scott Jennings to Editorial Board.
I have been a fan of Scott Jennings on CNN since I first saw that Scott Jennings was on CNN.
I’ve made no secret of that since I wrote pieces about him and used his video clips all the time. Every day, he is the sole voice of reason on panels dominated by lefties whose idea of argumentation amounts to scoffing at others. It’s a treat to watch because Scott is unflappable, brings the goods, and is the one person who relies on reason and facts.
Most of us in his situation would get frustrated; I know I would because I would make the mistake of thinking that my audience was the people in the room and not the people watching the debate. No matter how reasonable or even obvious Scott’s arguments are, the people sitting at the table will never acknowledge that Scott has a point.
Scott Jennings is awesome!pic.twitter.com/y1LZqw1K4M
— Defiant L’s (@DefiantLs) November 23, 2024
It’s always five against one. But Scott, as the one, always gets the better of it because the five are usually peddling talking points, not persuasive arguments.
This gets us to this: the owner of The Los Angeles Times–an extraordinarily liberal paper that has been roiled by controversy over the owner’s diktat that the paper not endorse in the presidential race–has decided to bring Scott on as an editorial board member.
Read on, as David Strom of Hot Air quotes Oliver Darcy, formerly of CNN, having a swarmy meltdown over L.A. Times owner Pat Soon-Shiong hiring Jennings. But Soon-Shiong may have far better known subscribers’ heads exploding as well. In 2005, when the LA. Times’ previous owner hired a pre-TDS Jonah Goldberg and dropped lefty Robert Scheer, Barbra Streisand had a near-aneurysm in response:
I am delighted to be in the Los Angeles Times and I’m deeply flattered by the opportunity. I would be saddened if Streisand were right in her claim that my presence will hurt the paper or if her insinuation that she somehow speaks for the larger community were true.
But Streisand is adamant. She writes, “The greater Southern California community is one that not only proudly embraces its diversity, but demands it. Your decision to fire Robert Scheer is a great disservice to the spirit of our community.”
She continues: “It seems that your new leadership, especially Publisher Jeff Johnson, is entirely out of touch with your readers and their desire to be exposed to views that stretch them beyond their own paradigms. So although the number of contributors to your Op-Ed pages may have increased, in firing Scheer and hiring columnists such as Jonah Goldberg, the gamut of voices has undeniably been diluted.”
Babs and “the Desirable”
So, taking Streisand seriously, we must ask: Is she on crack?
Robert Scheer may be the greatest writer since homo sapiens first scribbled on cave walls, but no serious person can believe that his views test the elasticity of Streisand’s “paradigms.” He reinforces them, he ladles concrete on them. Scheer confirms all of her biases and reaffirms all of her ill-considered views. Put aside the fact that both Scheer and Streisand are committed leftists who share almost identical views on most major issues. Scheer served as an informal adviser to Ms. Streisand on at least one occasion–when she delivered a speech to Harvard. Streisand, who recently called for President Bush’s impeachment, threw a book party for Scheer when his last anti-Bush book came out, and she regularly links to his articles on her always amusing website.
And even if you suspect I don’t have the intellectual firepower to burn toast, it’s hard to see how my views wouldn’t put just a bit of spring in her paradigm. Indeed, it’s doubtful that Scheer would even take the time to tell her that “gamuts” cannot be “diluted” or that if you are going to pronounce upon “principals of journalistic integrity” with Olympian pomposity, you might take an extra moment or two to spell “principles” correctly. Otherwise, when she writes that the Times is stepping away “from the principals of journalistic integrity, which would dictate that journalists be journalists, editors be editors and accountants be accountants” it sounds like she’s saying we should back away slowly from the dean of the Columbia Journalism School and other journalistic “dictators.” “Have that accountant beaten! He’s acting like an editor!”
Here’s hoping Jennings will have a similar metaphorical effect on the L.A. Times’ remaining leftist subscribers: