Rob's decision also falls into the category of "editorial discretion," a practice of every newspaper, television and radio station in the country.
If newspapers didn't edit for content and printed every story that came their way, it would take a crane to deliver it to our front stoops each morning, not to mention there aren't enough trees in the world to accomplish the task.
There was also no necessity for him to be up front with his decision. It would have far, far easier to take it up with individual writers. He hasn't hidden the fact that he's lost some readership, memberships and writers, because of his announcement.
First, they neglected to cover a huge annual festival sponsored by a prominent Jewish group that was attended by all the big pols from the governor on down. The outrage expressed in letters to the editor and on local talk radio rang out loud and clear. The smaller L.A. daily, the Daily News, covered the event. People noticed. The Times' loss of readership was the Daily News' gain.
The Times also lost subscribers, because of their former stance of never saying two words in a row: illegal alien. They danced all around the elephant in Los Angles and usually said, undocumented immigrant.
The Fred Astaire prizes for the best fancy footwork around the issue went to the Times guys who thought up "surreptitious immigrants" and "transnational criminals."
So, the Times lost some readership over those two issues. In the long run, did it matter? I wonder how many of those "cancellers" missed their morning Times so much, that they came back.
To ban or not to ban?, tis the question, and I remain ambivalent as ever.
However, thank you, Bob Scheibel, wherever you are. That J-101 exercise was well-learned and applies to all writing whether it be straight news reporting or expressing an opinion.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).