JUST WHEN YOU THOUGHT THE DAILY PILOT COULDN'T GET ANY WORSE
It's a bad time for liberal newspapers, dear friends. Their circulation figures are down. Their advertising revenues are falling. Fewer people are reading them. More and more people are turning to the Internet. Newspaper types are in a foul mood.
Nevertheless, we here at the CM PRESS think a good daily newspaper can be good for a community. We only wish we had one in Costa Mesa and Newport Beach.
Now, maybe we just expect too much from the Daily Pilot. Granted, it's not exactly a major newspaper...but, with a readership potential of a couple hundred thousand souls, you'd think it would be a little better.
Not only is the paper allowing smears from the usual dimwit and cowardly cranks in Costa Mesa, who hide under rocks with the rest of the loathsome creatures, but now some on the payroll are also putting out garbage.
Back when S. J. Cahn was the editor of the Pilot, we congratulated the paper on the improvements we saw. Then, overnight, Cahn was gone and the paper started getting worse again. In our opinion, it's been going downhill at a steady clip.
These days, the Pilot is thrashing about like a headless fish and seems to even be engaging in some hate mongering. "Pssst, didja hear that making our parks safe for little kids is really a secret plot to chase Latinos out of the city? Pass it on. Remember, you read about it in the Daily Pilot so it must be true." Isn't that what Thomas H. Johnson, publisher of the Daily Pilot, was really saying in his column the other day?
Newspapers are inanimate things. They are good or bad because of the people running them. And, it is Thomas H. Johnson who runs the Pilot. Johnson, and Johnson alone, is responsible for what you read in the Pilot. When you read letters from bigots who smear others, Johnson is ultimately responsible for those letters being in the newspaper. When you read hate on the Pilot's blog, it is Johnson who is ultimately responsible.
Never fear, change may be in the wind, dear friends. Maybe (keep your fingers crossed) there will be an attitude change at the Pilot. Maybe the paper will get better and actually try to help make Newport Beach and Costa Mesa nicer communities.
Here's why. The Tribune Company, which owns the Los Angeles Times and the Pilot and much more, may soon go private.
One local character--a guy who donated some of his retirement income to the two losing Return to Reason candidates in the last election--wrote a smarmy letter to the Pilot alluding to this ownership change. And, his buddy, Thomas H. Johnson, dutifully published the letter, probably because it attempted a childish smear of me--suggesting (tongue in cheek) that if I don't like the Pilot, that I might contact (real estate magnate) Sam Zell. Yuck, yuck, yuck.
In case you don't know this, Sam Zell has the inside track on being the new owner of the Tribune Company and, as mentioned above, everything that Tribune owns, including the Daily Pilot.
Yuck, yuck, yuck. Think I should contact Sam? Okay. I may give Sam a call. Or, maybe I'll talk to him at the shareholder meeting. Or, failing that, I may just wait until I run into him at a convention. I have a suggestion or two that he may want to consider.
But, again, Sam Zell doesn't own the outfit just yet. Escrow has not closed, as we say in the biz. The Tribune shareholder meeting is scheduled for August 21, and it's generally expected that the company will be Sam's after that. If I don't have time to fly back for the meeting, I may just ask that a letter from me be read to the board as has been done in the past.
Now, before we go on, don't blame the reporters and the folks in the press room at the Pilot for the low quality of the thinking that's being done over there. They have to do what Thomas H. Johnson, publisher of the Daily Pilot, tells them to do. Remember, he's the guy who sets the tone and he's the responsible party.
At any rate, take a look at the Pilot's lead editorial today (Sunday, 7/22/07), for an example of poor thinking that actually, and laughably, was printed on a newspaper page for all to see. Its lack of logic is embarrassing and it is chock full of fallacies that any bright sixth grader would avoid.
The editorial starts off with this canard: "Remember the days when kids played in parks?'
"Yeah. Uh, uh, shucks golly, we remember those days, don't we Mildred?"
Hey, Pilot, remember the days when "kids" playing in Paularino Park didn't have five o'clock shadows and didn't drive up in cars and didn't drink beer and urinate and defecate in the park and do you remember when these "kids" wouldn't endanger younger kids and themselves with their activities?
Next up in the editorial, we read a series of facetious remarks making fun of claims that soccer balls and soccer games are dangerous, including: "Soccer balls are dangerous weapons, the park silencers said. Some people can be killed by soccer balls." Yuck, yuck. Being hit by a soccer ball is dangerous? Who ever heard of such a thing? Look here.
The editorial then facetiously suggests that we should be "requiring spectators" at AYSO soccer games" to wear helmets...because balls...fly from the field and onto the sidelines at high velocity...."
"Yuck, yuck, why slap my knee, Mildred! He sure did tell them thar folks who live near Paularino Park, didn't he though? Guffaw, guffaw. Shucks, it makes my buck teeth ache with laughter."
A couple of things about this, Mr. or Ms. Editorial Writer, and Thomas H. Johnson, publisher of the Daily Pilot:
1. AYSO games are not played at Paularino Park. Mr. Johnson, did you think you could divert attention from what is happening at Paularino Park by suddenly switching to talking about AYSO? It's apples and pears.
The reason AYSO games aren't played at Paularino Park is because the park has no sports fields and players might injure themselves by running into trees, by falling on the small hillocks, by tripping in sprinkler holes, by slipping on the sidewalk, etc. In fact, the City of Costa Mesa never grants permits to play soccer in such parks. Way too much liability.
AYSO games are played on special fields that take a long time to construct and which cost taxpayers big bucks. They are very flat. They don't have hillocks. They don't have trees. They don't have a sidewalk bisecting the field. They don't have a tot lot and swings in the center of the field. They don't have unwilling "spectators" (often in diapers) sitting in the middle of the games.
Now, we know it's difficult for Thomas H. Johnson, publisher of the Daily Pilot, and his editorial writer to understand the difference between a soccer field and a tiny park with all the aforementioned potential hazards--it's a little too nuanced for them, apparently, but you, dear reader, not being the publisher of the Daily Pilot, probably immediately understand the differences right away. Of course, you probably have an advantage over Thomas H. Johnson, publisher of the Daily Pilot, in that you may actually live in Costa Mesa, unlike Thomas H. Johnson, publisher of the Daily Pilot.
And what about my statement above about proper soccer fields taking a long time to construct and costing taxpayers big bucks? Check out all the time and money that the City of Costa Mesa is putting into constructing soccer fields at the Fairview Developmental Center for evidence of this. And, those fields actually started out as flat fields without hillocks, trees, etc.
2. There are no sidelines at Paularino Park, Mr. Johnson. The park is too small to have anything like regular sidelines. In addition, and to state it once again, the tot lot is in the center of the "soccer field," that is not a soccer field.
The writer of this editorial, if he or she has been able to spawn, should show us how safe it is to sit in the middle of a soccer field during a game when you're a toddler.
Come on, editorial writer, put your toddlers in the middle of a soccer game and see if they get injured or not. That's right, do an experiment. Put your kids in a sandbox in the middle of a soccer game. Bring Thomas H. Johnson's kids and/or grandkids with you too. Just sit your one and two-year-olds with their little sand buckets and shovels in the middle of a soccer game. Be sure that the soft spots on the tops of their little heads are easily hit by soccer balls or easily reached by soccer players with cleats. Let us know how it turns out.
Remember, dear readers, don't bring up park safety issues or the Daily Pilot and its shills will say your concerns are racially motivated. And, don't try to improve the Westside or that's racially motivated. Don't try to have cars stopped from endangering kids at drop off points at schools or that's racially motivated. Forget about removing slums. That's racially motivated. Having homes built on the Westside Bluffs where they belong? Racially motivated. Complaining about gangs? That's racially motivated.
See a pattern here, dear readers? In fact, about the only thing some of these libs will accept is for you to sit like a pig in swill as the city falls apart.
But, maybe we have it wrong. Read the Pilot for yourself and draw your own conclusions.
# # #
Those are our opinions. Thanks for reading them.
