Al Martinez, is a bit of California Gold, and people of all political persuasions, among the readership of the Los Angeles Times, agree with that sentiment.
As I wrote in November, when I learned that this Old Journalistic Dog was learning the new trick called Blogging, at age 79 no less...
I've been addicted to the writing of Los Angeles Times Columnist Al Martinez since forever!
Mr. Martinez is, as he describes himself, the "author of a dozen books, an Emmy-nominated creator of prime time television shows, a travel writer, humorist and general hell-raiser."
His writing will amuse, anger, annoy, edumicate, entertain, inform, move, please, touch, wow you and more, sometimes in the same piece, and agree, or disagree with what he has to say you will find the time reading him well spent.
At an age when a lot of columnists, like Actors, and Directors in Hollyweird, would be calling it a career, Al is pulling a Clint Eastwood, and producing some of the best, most thoughtful, and entertaining work of his long caeer.
Many of the readers of his newspaper column have, in just a few months, discovered that, unconstrained, from any possible Tsk, Tsking, from skittish editors, Al is slowly making a comfortable home for himself in the Blogosphere.
Unlike Clint, however, it seems his efforts are not appreciated by those who employ him.
In his most recent Blog entry, just before Christmas, he gave his readers a look at his efforts to help the struggling Los Angeles Times.
As newspapers struggle to enhance their appeal to younger readers by dressing up their pages and limiting the use of words that exceed three syllables, I am filled with a growing need to help them survive.
Readers of my column may have noticed that my own strong response to the effort is to be less scholarly in my output, eliminating topics like war and the economy in favor of dating, text messaging and how to screw like a vampire.
Confusing words like ambience and environment no longer clutter my weekly essays while, on the other hand, I make good use of simpler terms such as she, it, crotch, butt and car, all of which contain a certain visual appeal to the young and the useless.
In addition to which, in a continuing effort to be a part of whas happnon (that is “what’s happening” in the slurred argot of the hip) I have assumed the slouch and cool disdain of today’s young men, wearing my pants low enough to expose half of my behind and a T-shirt emblazoned with a series of suggestions of what you can do if you don’t like it.
As, um, "Testicle grabbing" efforts to drag prospective readers to the newsstand go, this can best be described as well, um, read the rest of the piece, hee, hee! ;-D
Sadly, Al has given some of his legion of fans a heads-up that January 19th will see his last column in the Times.
LA's only newspaper doesn't want his help to survive.
Wassup with that?
Is he too old?
Would they prefer to devote the space to the same type of idiocy too frequently espoused by contributors, Liberal and Conservative, in its Opinion Pages, and certain other Columns?
They can't afford to have a Pulitzer Winner grace their pages, but they can afford the musings of Moonbats, and, um, ahh, err, what ARE the Moonbats calling Conservatives THIS week, anyway?
Marching, enmass, on the Times to protest this outrage, at this late date, won't accomplish more than give the local cops, down the street, something to do on a lazy afternoon, but readers can at least express themselves in e-mails to the Times High Muckity-Mucks, and the Reader Representative, and in blog posts and their Comments, such as this one.
Everyone will really have to be quick and get something sent to key people at the L.A. Times.
If you like Al and his column, then send an e-mail to these two addresses about what you think and what you’ll do if they let Al go (i.e., cancel your subscription/read other things such as his blog (Which you will do anyway, right?), etc.).
Send it tomorrow evening so this e-mail account is stacked full when people come in Monday morning.
readersrep @ latimes.com
Will such an effort work? Who knows? But at least we expressed our thoughts on their misguided decision.
As if the archived body of work of Mr. Martinez, at the Times, and elsewhere, doesn't provide ample evidence for them to read to see his worth to the paper, his blog work provides more.
Besides the pieces discussed, and linked to, in my original story, as mentioned above, there are others:
Isle of Enchantment
When They Drove Old Dixe Down
They should have played “The Night They Drove Old Dixie Down” when Barak Obama was elected president of the United States.
It’s a song about a defining moment in the Civil War that saw the old South and all that it stood for going down to defeat.
They should have put the version by Joan Baez on a public address system and let it play over the massive audience in Grant Park like a marching song of freedom rising through the chilly night.
The Face of Hatred
One is overwhelmed with a feeling of both vulnerability and helplessness when coming face to face with the kind of hatred that seems to spring from nowhere, directed at an idea embodied in a man. It would have accomplished very little to stop and talk to him; his indoctrination in the concept of rage was complete. He was beyond civility.
Being targeted by the face of hatred and subsequently viewing scenes of the current massacre in Mumbai, I came to realize how deep the loathing was. While the death toll included citizens of India and elsewhere, it was Americans and Brits the killers were seeking; it was their holy mission to destroy us.
The man in black had decided we were among those he despised.
As he moves on to shares his insights with a growing readership of his blog, our gain will be the Times loss, and the loss of those who read its print, and online, pages, if they follow-thru on their decision.
Agree, or disagree, with what he writes, you will never be bored.
***UPDATE - 330PM***
Well, that was fast!
I had planned to send an e-mail to the Reader Rep, when I got to work early, only to find what appeared to be an attempt at heading me off at the pass, hee, hee!
Somehow, or another, the above essay and, I assume, the thoughts of others, made their way to the Editor of the California Section of the LA Times, and I check my e-mail once I arrived at work only to find the following:
Russ Stanton forwarded your message regarding Al.
You and I may not agree on the subject, but I'd like to explain our reasons.
As everyone knows, we're in the midst of the worst economic slowdown since the 1930s. Newspaper revenue, which comes overwhelmingly from advertising, is way down and is likely to drop even further over the course of the year as stores go out of business and those that remain cut back on the number of ads they run. As a result, we have to find ways to economize. And that means we have to make difficult choices. As California Editor, I've been happy to have Al's column in my section. He's a good man and a fine writer, and he's been part of the Times for many years. But my primary mission has to be news coverage. So when I'm looking at the budget, I have to weigh Al's column against things like keeping our Sacramento bureau operating to tell you and other readers what the governor and legislature are up to, or reserving money to buy fire gear to protect our reporters and photographers when they are in the field covering Southern California's repeated wildfires.
We know that Al's column has many fans among our readers. Indeed, everything that we publish has fans. There is no way to make cuts without angering someone. I wish money were plentiful and we didn't have to make choices like this. But I can't change the economic realities we live with, and they are difficult. This is a year in which a number of newspapers around the country likely will go out of business altogether. The Times is not in that category, but we have to act prudently to make sure we never get to that point.
I'm sorry that Al's column is one of the things we have to let go of, and I'm sorry, too, that the decision has angered you. We value our readers and their opinions. I hope I've at least been able to shed light on how we came to this decision and that even if you disagree with it, you'll understand that it was done after considerable thought and extensive advance notice to Al.
Best wishes,
David Lauter
California Editor
Los Angeles Times
All of what he says is understandable, but that doesn't mean we have to like it, or go down without a fight. ;-D
I still can't help but believe that there were other choices that could have been made.
Al is so much better than some of the other folks who take up space in the paper that finding a way to keep him should have been a no-brainer.
Ah, well...the Times loss is the Blogosphere's gain, and I believe that Al will bounce back with a regular gig sooner rather than later.
***END UPDATE***
Story continues with Stepping Up for Bard of Topanga!
Is the world obsessed with Nudity?
