Half the News That's Fit To Print

The newspaper scene in Los Angeles changed mightily the first week of 1962. Prior to that, we had two major morning newspapers — the Los Angeles Times and the Los Angeles Examiner. And we had two major afternoon papers — the Los Angeles Mirror and the Los Angeles Herald-Express. The Times and the Mirror were published by a company called The Times-Mirror Corporation and the Examiner and the Herald-Express were published by the Hearst Corporation.

That was how it worked Monday through Saturday. On Sunday, the Times-Mirror folks put out a Sunday edition of the Times which included comic strips, columnists and other features from both of their papers. And the Hearst people put out a Sunday paper which featured the best of both of their papers.

On 1/5/62, the Times-Mirror company announced that it was discontinuing their afternoon paper, the Mirror. Almost simultaneously, Hearst announced they were stopping their morning paper, the Examiner. The Hearst afternoon paper was thereafter known as the Herald-Examiner.

The timing, of course, caused everyone to assume a deal had been made between the two publishers…and I think it's still taken as fact that one was. But there was some denial of that at the time. A Congressional inquiry was held to determine if any laws — anti-trust ones, perhaps — had been violated by this apparent collusion but I don't think anything came of it.

Still, there was much shouting and wailing as each organization dismissed a great number of employees. Kids who delivered newspapers on their bicycles complained that their incomes had been halved. Subscribers to the discontinued papers were not all happy with how, for example, a subscription for a year to one paper suddenly became a subscription to the other, and if you took both of one company's papers, you now had twice as long a sub to the remaining one.

That was the case in our house. My father loved newspapers but he hated the Hearst operation for a lot of the same reasons that some people now despise Fox News. Thus, we just got the Times and the Mirror. He took the Mirror largely because he played the stock market and didn't want to wait until the next morning to see how his stocks had closed. When it went away, he overcame his Hearst aversion and subscribed to the Herald-Examiner.

At the time, being not quite ten years of age, what concerned me most was the comic strips. I did occasionally read something not on the funnies page but none of that was as important as the comics. Each of the four newspapers had one page of comic strips with a few other strips scattered elsewhere around each edition.

Prior to the downsizing, I had not been fully deprived of the many fine comic strips that ran in the two Hearst papers just because my father wouldn't have them in the house. My Aunt Dot and Uncle Aaron got them and they'd save the Examiner Sunday pages for me. Sometimes, if they remembered, they'd save some of the daily pages for me. I liked visiting Aunt Dot and Uncle Aaron.

I imagine that at each of the two firms, there was much discussion about what to do about the funnies when they each dropped one of their newspapers. At the newly-rechristened Herald-Examiner, they had a glorious solution: They ran two pages of comics! They ran the entire page that had appeared in the Examiner and on the facing page, there was the same full page that had run in the Herald-Express.

That made me very happy but, alas, it didn't last for long. A few weeks later, they announced that for budgetary reasons, they'd be dropping enough strips to get down to one page. I vaguely recall that they ran some sort of survey to ask their readers what should stay and what should go. I might be wrong about that but I do vividly recall my disappointment one day when I opened to the funnies pages and there was just one of them.

The Times-Mirror folks got down to one page of comics immediately. They kept the Times comic strip page mostly intact but dropped about eight strips from it to make room for what they must have thought were the eight (or so) most popular strips from the Mirror. They included Dennis the Menace, Mr. Mum, B.C., Peanuts and Pogo. Not long after, I believe — and remember, these are unconfirmed recollections from when I was pretty young — Walt Kelly's Pogo disappeared from the Times and therefore from Los Angeles. That didn't bother me as much then as it would have a few years later when I was finally old enough to start understanding some of it.

The Herald-Examiner went out of business in 1989. The Times continues to publish but I don't think I've touched a copy in ten years. I took delivery of it when I first moved out of my parents' house in the mid-seventies because, well, a daily newspaper was something you just had to have when I was a kid. But increasingly, they were piling up unread and on days when it didn't come (or got stolen off my porch), I didn't notice. When I finally noticed that I wasn't noticing, I took that as a sign to cancel my subscription. This was well before there was an Internet as we know it.

Unlike some friends a decade or two older than me, I do not miss the daily comics. I miss certain cartoonists and characters but I vastly prefer to read them in book collections. I am very proud that I am now involved with bringing Pogo to the world in that format. It was my favorite newspaper strip long before I ever met anyone related to Mr. Kelly. I enjoy my current favorite comic strips online and I pointedly do not check them every day. I let a few weeks go by, then I read many at a time to catch up. I still love comic strips. I just don't like loving them one day at a time.

Today's Video Link

Stephanie J. Block sings "Our Time," one of my favorite tunes from the Sondheim repertoire…

Which Hunt?

Since we're hearing incessantly about "witch hunts" these days, it might be nice to know more about them.

Saturday Morning

A day or two before the presidential election of 1992, independent candidate Ross Perot went on Larry King Live, the TV program which was largely responsible for him even being on the ballot. King asked him the obvious question: "How do you think you're going to do on Tuesday?"

I haven't been able to find a video or transcript online but I remember his answer quite vividly. It struck me as especially stunning since Perot's appeal to voters — the only real reason he was a major candidate who'd been included in the debates — was that he was a straight-talking, atypical politician. And what this straight-talking, atypical politician said was that he was going to carry every state and win 100% of all 538 electoral votes. All of them.

I remember the look of shock on Mr. King's face and he muttered something about how no one in history had ever done that, to which Perot replied with dead seriousness that he'd be the first. I don't recall if King then pointed out that at that moment, not one single pollster was showing Perot as being even close to winning one state, let alone every one. And indeed on Election Day, Perot won as many as I did. Or you did. Or Donald Duck did. Zero.

I wonder to this day: Was that what he really believed or was it something he thought he should say? It had to be one or the other and neither is flattering to the man.

I began thinking about this again last night when I saw this…

As hundreds of reports like this one by Rod Dreher have pointed out, Trump is being accused — indirectly, but accused nonetheless — of actual crimes by the actual Justice Department.  There was nothing in the Very Bad News he received yesterday that clears him.  He's in more legal jeopardy now than ever.  Does he know that?  Was that what he really believed or was it something he thought he should say?

If it was something he thought he should say, he's in trouble because that's not a response that will satisfy his supporters and it certainly won't stop the accusations and indictments from rolling on, even if the prosecutors have concluded that the President of the United States cannot be indicted, no matter what he's done.  There are (and will be more) charges that have to be faced.  You can't make them go away by insisting they do not exist.

But if he really believes he was cleared, he's in bigger trouble.  Because you can't even formulate a strategy if you don't even know what you're up against.

My Latest Tweet

  • Tomorrow night, Saturday Night Live should have Robert DeNiro come out and say, "Fuck Individual-1!"

Practically Perfect

I'm back from a screening of the long-awaited sequel to the 1964 classic film. Mary Poppins Returns won't be released until December 19 so I guess real reviews are verboten right now…but I doubt anyone at Disney will be outraged if I say here that it's real, real good.

In fact, it's about as good as you could reasonably expect a follow-up to be with outstanding performances and visuals and songs and script and just about everything. If you can't imagine anyone but Julie Andrews in the title role or won't like that this version is a little darker and scarier, you won't enjoy yourself. You'll also be stubbornly depriving yourself of a wonderful time at the movies.

Today's Video Link

Cookie Monster and Superstar Ballerina Misty Copeland perform the Cookie Ballet…

You Don't Gotta Have Hart

Okay…so Kevin Hart is out as Oscar Host because he might offend people and Ricky Gervais is trying to place himself in the running. But of course, the whole point of picking Ricky Gervais would be to get more people to tune in because he would be offending people. I don't think so and it all begs the question of just what the job requirements today are to host the Academy Awards. I'm not sure anyone is clear on this. I'm not sure there really are any.

Some of those involved in the selection probably aren't interested in anything else besides "Who'd get the most people to tune in?" America's interest in award shows has fizzled a lot in recent years, perhaps because there are way too friggin' many of them. But maybe it's also because your top movie stars are paid so, so much money (and it's not a secret) that a lot of people really view the show as a lot of undeserving, easy-to-resent, overpaid people celebrating the awesomeness of each other. Which, of course, it is.

To some extent, the Oscars these days are like watching Jeff Bezos play Deal or No Deal. Even winning the top prize isn't going to change his life one bit. We don't have a lot of rooting interest these days for actors, even for our favorites. If your career has been such that you're up for an Oscar, you're probably to the point where you're so rich and famous that it won't make a bit of difference. I mean, you might get $20 million for your next film instead of $15 million but why should anyone who can't afford health insurance care?

So maybe what the Oscars need is a host who can puncture all the pomposity and bring it back down closer to the real world. In that sense, maybe Ricky Gervais wouldn't be a bad choice, just as Kevin Hart wasn't a bad choice. But then the show won't so much be about Who will win? but about about Who will Ricky insult? Hell, if all we want is controversy and puncturing, forget about Ricky and bring in Gilbert Gottfried.

Somewhere amidst those who'll make the decision, there may be someone concerned with propriety and the dignity of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. There are plenty of hosts out there who can fulfill that role. Why not have Meryl Streep host? She's a big star and it would save the time it takes a winner seated in the audience to get to the stage. She could just give herself most of the awards — and don't tell me she isn't likely to be up for one this time. With Streep, that doesn't matter.

Really, nothing matters on Oscars Night. Those who just want a host who will improve the ratings may be kidding themselves that there is a host who will improve the ratings. In a real sense, it's like trying to select a sportscaster who'll boost the tune-in for the World Series. If people care about who wins, they'll watch and if they don't, you could have the biggest or the rudest person doing play-by-play and he or she wouldn't make a gram of difference. I say get Gervais…or better still, Gottfried. Hell, get Trump and let him congratulate himself after every award because, you know, he would.

I'm not saying it will improve the ratings. I don't think any host would improve the ratings. They'll be the same if a megastar hosts or if you and I go in and do it. They should just pick the person who will make a shambles of the thing because at least those of us who do watch will enjoy watching the ship sink.

Broadway Joe Young

From afar, I've been following the new King Kong musical that recently opened on Broadway. The critics were mixed. A few friends of mine who've seen it thought it was great. Everyone — even reviewers who were underwhelmed — seems to think the Kong puppet and the leading lady (Christiani Pitts) are superb.

But it ain't doing Kong-sized biz at the box office. For the week ending 12/2, it was at 73.94% capacity. Nearby, Aladdin, Come From Away, Dear Evan Hansen, Frozen, Hamilton, Harry Potter, Mean Girls, Network, Pretty Woman, Springsteen, The Book of Mormon, The Cher Show, Lion King, To Kill a Mockingbird and Wicked were all at 95% or more. Many of those shows were selling-out, which would make you think that a lot of folks who couldn't get in to see Lion King, for instance, were looking for something else to see. Kong tickets are available for half-off at the TKTS booth.

A show made from a beloved story that features two outstanding performances (Ms. Pitts and the big marionette) should be doing a little better. Here's a news story about it…

And someone on YouTube posted a good video of the curtain call at the performance they attended and this also makes me want to see King Kong: The Musical. I dunno when my next New York trip will occur but I sure hope it's still running then. That's gotta be an expensive show to put on every night…

Les is More Creepy

I wish I could look away from the still-unfolding story in the Les Moonves matter but it ain't easy. You look at this guy who was fabulously wealthy, wildly successful, happily (supposedly) wed, not bad-looking, often charming and versed in what some might call "people skills" and (again, supposedly) pretty damned smart. Then you try to reconcile that with what he did and all the damage he did to himself and everyone around him — his victims, especially — and it just doesn't reconcile.

It's like the Cosby matter but without the drugging part. Both men might as well have gone out and started robbing 7-Eleven stores for all the sense their crimes made. You wonder if anyone around them who knew about it — and clearly, some did and did nothing — at least said, "Les [or Bill], you know there are hookers for that kind of thing. Why don't you spend five minutes' income on one of them instead?" Never having tried either, I guess I don't see how paid sex could be any less satisfying than coerced sex.

Is it a frustration that all that power was not absolute power? That it was a thrill to feel that no one could say no to them, not even over that? I have encountered people who seemed obsessed about controlling everyone around them, whether they did it by threats, money, personal charm or some bizarre combo of two or more. I'm not expecting an answer to any of this and maybe that's because there isn't one.

I keep thinking back about a line that the playwright Alan Jay Lerner once said: "There are some people in this world who are absolutely brilliant at playing the clarinet and nothing else." Just because you are smart about one thing doesn't mean you aren't an idiot at something else. Maybe that's all there is to this. Maybe.

me on the simulcast

This very afternoon, our buddy Stu Shostak offers his annual Christmas Gift-Giving Guide on Stu's Show. You can hear it as an audio show online or watch it as a video program online or on your Roku-enabled viewing device or TV. I'll be Guest #2, explaining that the gift of true love this year is one or more volumes of Pogo: The Complete Syndicated Comic Strips.

The festivities commence at 4 PM Pacific Time. I'll be on around 4:45, give or take five minutes…and the other guests are worthy of your attention, as well. To find out how to listen or watch, go to the Stu's Show website where you will be presented with many options. If the show inspires you to order some Pogo books for a loved one, come back here and order by clicking on the Pogo link in my right margin. Even if that loved one is yourself. Hey, you deserve a gift, too.

Today's Video Link

It's Randy Rainbow time!

From the E-Mailbag…

Janet Ybarra is back with a follow-up…

Thanks for running my comments today, and also for explaining your love of The Honeymooners in the context of forgiveness instead of just "Well, Jackie Gleason was hysterical and that's why I like it."

But since you were sensitive to Cosby's many victims, let me just leave you with this thought to ponder. If you had a daughter, would you want her getting involved with — let alone marrying — a guy who was conditioned to think it's ok to raise a fist to a woman in any sense because Kramden did and got laughs (and maybe this hypothetical guy doesn't grasp the themes of love and forgiveness)? Just asking.

Hmm. Well, if I had this hypothetical daughter, I wouldn't want her getting involved with a bus driver who's paid so little that they have to live in the crummy apartment that the Kramdens had. And no, I wouldn't want her living with a guy who would even joke about belting her but I might also think she knows this guy better than I do and maybe she really loves him.

I also wouldn't want her living like Ginger and Mary Ann did on Gilligan's Island or living like Lois Lane did on the Superman show or living like Miss Kitty on Gunsmoke or anyone on The Sopranos or hundreds of other fictional characters on fictional shows I could name.

In the real world, I am against anyone hitting anyone for any reason except possibly genuine self-defense or protecting someone who genuinely needs protecting. In fiction, it's a different matter, especially in a situation like The Honeymooners where Ralph never does it, Alice knows he'd never do it and they both love each other like crazy. It makes me a bit uncomfy since the joke doesn't play as a joke for some but maybe it's a nice indicator of progress that the concept of belting your wife no longer seems as funny as it once did.

The Crooked Vice-President

Forgive me, dear friends, but I'm about to suggest you devote four hours of your life to listening to a podcast. Do it one chapter at a time but check out Bagman, a seven-chapter series produced by Rachel Maddow and her crew. It's the story of how Richard Nixon's Vice-President Spiro Agnew got caught dead-to-rights at the most basic, primitive form of political crime: Taking bribes. And it's also the story of how he sought to escape conviction and punishment by rallying his base against the press, attacking the prosecutors and using the power of his office to obstruct justice.

Ms. Maddow does not dwell overlong on the parallels to current events but she does point you towards that comparison. And even if you ignore that or don't see the similarities, it's still a helluva story that was not fully reported at the time, largely because Mr. Nixon's own concurrent scandals were more important and more colorful. Not only does Maddow cover the Agnew story in full but she and her team have unearthed large quantities of hitherto unknown facts and details. It's really a superb reporting job, involving as it does current-day interviews with reps from both Agnew's team of lawyers and from the squad prosecuting him.

As I said, it runs four hours and I certainly found it worth at least that much of my life. You can listen to or download all seven parts from just about any major disseminator of podcasts (iTunes, Stitcher, etc.) but the easiest might be this page where MSNBC has put them all up. How long they'll be there, I don't know so listen to Part One and see if you get as hooked on the story as I did. If so, download them all so you can listen to them when you can. And don't miss the part where investigators uncovered how Agnew, who routinely scolded Americans about morality and the sanctity of Family, was found to have a couple of mistresses.

Today's Video Link

Cookie Monster Week — which is fast turning into me posting a Cookie Monster video every other day — continues with this one. I'm guessing one day someone at the Sesame Street offices turned to someone else at the Sesame Street offices and said, "You know, our target audience is three-to-five years of age. What do you think the average child of four is dying to see?" And that other person at the Sesame Street offices said, "Oh, probably a good parody of Les Miserables!"…