Memo to Kevin Roderick

Kevin Roderick at LA Observed is interested in how we came to the conclusion that the Times isn't keen on Hertzberg and how his election is a threat to their social order.

Let us just say before we go further that we're big fans of LA Observed and especially Roderick's Valley history work (in fact, I wish he had the time to give us more). His blog is really very high quality that a tattler rag like the Sister City could never dream of reaching (though to be fair to ourselves we serve a very different purpose and can co-exist quite well).

But to explain ourselves, its quite simple. The Times exists - and has for many decades - in a downtown centric, conservative in style (if not always politics), staid world of the LA social order. Populated by the Times, the DWP, the Gas Company and whatever corporate interests rule downtown at the time, they seek that the city government do their bidding irrespective of what is though in San Pedro, Pico-Union, Chatsworth, North Hollywood, etc.

A populist mayor from the San Fernando Valley who literally wants to turn government upside down - and who is challenging many of their sacred cows - could make life somewhat miserable for the Times staffers who drink of the downtown chalice. So what if Hertzberg is a Democrat - he is not part of the establishment.

Its kind of like when Jimmy Carter came to town and everyone started wearing jeans in DC.

PS: The main thrust of the story however was that in reporting on Julie Ewong's slams against Hertzberg, they failed to give equal time and give us examples of Szabo's fine counterpunches.