I love you TJ Simers

To carry this out further:
The way senior editors and columnists have been re-assigned and shown the door at The Times, do you think he would still be there if he weren't viewed as an asset?
It's a ridiculous stance.

 

See, that would be a problem. A columnist isn't supposed to be nice to the people who are nice to him and hard on the people who aren't nice to him. That's selling out at the most basic level, allowing himself to so easily manipulated. "This is T.J., Derek. If you're nice to him and laugh at his jokes today, you'll keep him off your back." Makes the columnist seem like a child, overly eager to hang with the cool kids.

Actually, I'm going to root that it isn't as pathetic as this, that T.J.'s phony-meter is more highly tuned than your post suggests and that he doesn't let himself get so easily played.

 

I don't think that's what Birdscribe is suggesting.
It's not a level of manipulation, it's a level of understanding.

 

Simers may have a contract and maybe they don't want to pay off a contract. Just because the Los Angeles Times did something doesn't mean it makes sense or is right. Simers does a radio show, so maybe the suits at the LA Times figure they can get a little extra benefit from that. Based on decision made at the LA Times, I wouldn't say they have done very much right. Can somebody explain to me why Bill Dwyre is writing for them and what he brings to the table?

The LA Times is a paper which, in large part, doesn't connect with its area. Unlike New York and Chicago, it has no real competition and despite that, the percentage of people in the LA area who get the paper isn't a lot.

The fact that they have cut back so much, especially in the sports section, shows that top management doesn't take sports all that seriously. I have said and will continue to say that if you put the LA Times sports section in the New York metro area, it is no better than third.

Of the columnists, JA Andade left pretty much because he saw a better future elsewhere. That should tell you more about the LA Times sports section than anything I could say. I think Andrade was more important to the LA Times than Simers because what he is will be more important to the future of the Times than anything Simers would bring to the table.

The LA Times has lost circulation with Simers. Now I wouldn't blame him for that, but I don't think anybody could say if he left, there would be any negative impact. He has more of an impact on this board than he does in southern California generally. His morning radio show doesn't get great ratings - a local sports show compared to a national radio show hosted by Colin Cowherd, for crying out loud. Based on the radio ratings, where is Simers's great impact?

Simers act would probably work better on the internet, but here is the problem. He wouldn't represent something with the perceived influence of the LA Times - and despite its' weaknesses, it is still a paper - maybe the only paper - which matters in southern California.

 

The Times is not a union paper. There are no contracts. And to think T.J. Simers is the (or a) reason that paper is losing circulation is myopic and jejune.

(And, I think the departed columnist you're referring to is J.A. Adande.)

 

J.A. Adande is so important, in fact, that he hates it when people can't get his name right when they're talking about his relative importance.

 

Well said, Fish. That's exactly where I was going.

 

I don't make spelling mistakes, I only make typing mistakes.

I meant to say I wouldn't blame Simers for a loss in circulation. I didn't get enough sleep last night, as may be obvious by the general grouchiness of my posts.