Meyerson's eulogy for the progressive LA Weekly

Friends,

I am sending you two important pieces by journalist Harold Meyerson. The first -- linked here -- is his final "Powerlines" column in the LA Weekly, a retrospective on LA politics and the LA Weekly's role as a progressive voice in our community, during his almost two decades at the paper. It is his final column because the new owners of the Weekly let Harold go. Don't mourn for Harold. He's doing fine from his pundit perch in DC. He was recently promoted to editor of the American Prospect and will continue as a regular columnist for the Washington Post.  But mourn for LA, which will miss Harold's strong reporting and commentary on LA politics and movements for justice.

And, perhaps more importantly, mourn for the loss of what the LA Weekly once was. The sacking of Harold is a symptom of what's happening at the newspaper. I am also sending Harold's letter to the LA Weekly staff -- linked here. His letter was triggered by the cover story in this week's LA Weekly about the death last year of Miguel Contreras, the brilliant organizer and political strategist who headed the LA County Federation of Labor and helped transform LA politics for the better. The article is irresponsible, gutter, tabloid journalism, with no redeeming value. It is difficult to understand why the paper published this crude story -- and put in on the cover, no less - except to sell newspapers and/or to lend support to those who wish to harm LA's progressive labor movement. Miguel and his family, who are still mourning his death, deserve better than this cheap hit. They will survive this crude piece of gutter journalism. They, and his many friends and allies, know that Miguel's life as a warrior for justice, was his real legacy and his gift to us. 

The "Dave" Harold refers to in the letter to the LA Weekly staff is David Zahniser, the reporter who in the past has written some good stories but who has jumped into the gutter with this one. The "Mike" in Harold's letter is Mike Lacey, the executive editor of Village Voice Media LLC, the newspaper chain that purchased the Weekly and is in the process of transforming it into more of a tabloid paper. Harold suggests in his letter, and I'm told by people in a position to know, that things at the Weekly will only get worse as the new owners solidify their hold on the paper, its staff, its budget, and the direction they want to pursue.

Moreover, the LA Weekly is, by all accounts, incredibly profitable. So the changes it is undergoing appear to be based primarily on the new owners' views about politics and culture rather than simply the bottom-line.

The loss of the LA Weekly as a progressive voice is a tragedy. When we organized the Progressive LA conference at Occidental College in October 1998, the Weekly was one of its cosponsors, featured it on its cover, and published several stories in the September 30, 1998 issue about the past, current, and future of progressive politics in LA (here and here). This reflected the Weekly's view of itself at the time as a watchdog and as an instrument for change. On politics, culture, and other matters, the LA Weekly has helped give voice to those forces who might otherwise be shut out of the public debate. It has reported on the people and organizations -- unions, community groups, environmentalists, women's rights and gay rights groups, immigrant rights activists, school reformers, fair trade advocates, living wage crusaders, and ordinary folks trying to cope with life in this diverse and sprawling city -- who've been on the front lines of the struggles for social and economic justice.

In its reporting and commentary, the Weekly has not been uncritical of liberal and progressive elected officials and organizations, but its criticisms have typically been constructive and responsible. When it endorsed candidates for political office -- something it apparantly won't be doing for this November 7 election -- the Weekly was never shy about  holding public officials, even liberal candidates it endorsed in the past, accountable for their words and deeds.

But how do we hold the new LA Weekly accountable? Outraged by this week's cover story, some folks floated the idea of organizing a boycott against the Weekly. But how can you organize a boycott against a newspaper that is distributed for free? And how can you put pressure on its advertisers when its ad pages are dominated by penis enlargement ads, breast augmentation ads, and dating services?