Can we just get this whole thing over with and get the SALE OF THE FISHRAG that is the UT over and done with? Seriously, every day I am convinced that Kittle and Reed are auditioning for gigs at the OC Register so they have a paycheck when the axe falls.

Posted by CMR | reply to this comment
November 7, 2008 2:41 pm

How about yesterday's UT editorial complaining about Gloria (along with Emerald and Lightner) being elected, even though they endorsed him. What in the...?!?!?!

Posted by eas | reply to this comment
November 7, 2008 4:12 pm

Now that you've pointed out this shocking imbalance, Scott, I had to take a second look at the new City Council's makeup. I think what has happened is that the Blue Wave has finally driven the U-T editorial board over the edge into an extreme Liberal mindset. I mean, there are three women, an African-American, a Hispanic, two gays, one white dude and one whatever Gloria is. It has to be about the most diverse Council ever, yet not diverse enough for the U-T. They want more diversity! It's just that their version of diversity means increasing the Republican count to meet, as you posited, a quota. And we all know that quotas are about the most Liberal reaction you could ask for. If one of the freshmen were known to wear a bowtie on a regular basis, the U-T might sleep soundly.

Posted by goodhabits | reply to this comment
November 7, 2008 6:42 pm

Your commentary is usually great, but this one is just bizarre. Why would you lump the city attorney with the city council? San Diego does not have a city attorney with the power to make policy like the council (and soon enough, the city attorney probably won't even want to). The city council lost a Republican and gained a Democrat. Democrats have not only a veto-proof majority on the council, but a very comfortable one. Are you really suggesting that this isn't important?

Posted by Mark S | reply to this comment
November 7, 2008 11:58 pm

Two things: One, the importance of the party affiliation of the people who serve on the City Council has always been exaggerated. Sure, on a few key votes every year, party decides all. But the split is usually more nuanced and it concerns whether you support certain reforms or not. Secondly, when you look at the politics of City Hall, Republicans and establishment types are overjoyed at the ouster of Aguirre and I think if you were to offer them this deal before the election -- lose one City Council seat, but also replace Aguirre -- they'd have taken it in an instant.

Posted by Scott Lewis | reply to this comment
November 8, 2008 9:26 am

Why are you still so crazed about the U-T, Scott? Are you still threatened by it, even in its weakened condition?

Posted by amy roth | reply to this comment
November 8, 2008 6:45 am

Someone's got to keep them on their toes. The U-T has always had critics but they have long focused on the ownership and machinations in management. I think the paper should be held accountable for what it says and does and it will then be better and stronger. I think one reason it's in its "weakened condition" is because it lost touch with reality. As a journalist and one who cares deeply about the industry, I don't want to see it weak. I want it to change and be strong. We desperately need a strong and competitive media landscape.

Posted by Scott Lewis | reply to this comment
November 8, 2008 9:19 am

Scott: What reality did the UT suddenly lose touch with? Was it the housing market crash that slashed ad revenue? Was it giving away content for free online without first finding a way to make money on the Web? Was it not realizing that free online content would cannibalize the paying subscriber base? I don't think that's what you meant, but that is actually what has weakened the UT and all newspapers. I would find your comment about wanting the competition strong more believable if you and Andrew didn't talk about the "slow death" of the newspaper every time you get the chance on KPBS. The newspaper business model is broken but it probably will be fixed. I don't see the pure online plays as having a business model given the revenue from Internet ads. You should be more circumspect on the radio. Grants don't last forever.

Posted by pac10voter | reply to this comment
November 9, 2008 9:33 pm

I do not believe that the U-T's content is what has resulted in its decline. I'm not one of those who believes its politics or reporting led it here. I've often mentioned it has lost touch with reality mostly in respect to its editorials. And I've challenged those because I think they need to be challenged. There's no bigger motive. At times, I point out quirks in their reporting and perspective their stories are missing. This is healthy and U-T's Chris Reed does it to other newspapers. My repetition of the troubles of the economics of newspapers and of this one in particular is borne out of alarm. I wish I shared your blind faith that the newspaper model will recover. But there's no guarantee. Our model is similar to public broadcasting, without the government. No guarantees here either. But we are buttressing site revenue with donations and grants.

Posted by Scott Lewis | reply to this comment
November 10, 2008 7:05 am

I'm one former SDUT subscriber who gave it up because of it's editorial content. I still read the front page online, but I won't pay them to propagate their ignorant myopic opinions. Listen to Kittle rage against recycled water on Editor's Roundtable.....even Orange County has implemented recycled water!

Posted by Carrie | reply to this comment
November 16, 2008 3:54 pm

Scott: Good points. There is nothing wrong with challenging the editorials or news content. But you and I both know that's not the impression you and Andrew leave when talking about the death of the newspaper. It's a business model problem. If it was a content problem, The LA Times, which has won more awards than God, would not have lost something like 350,000 subscribers over the past couple of years.. RE Blind Faith: Digital presses, customization of the newspaper, wireless delivery via subscription, niche products -- there are ways out of this. Online banner ads don't work well. The downturn will show flaws in the search ad model, too. Your model works in a niche, at least for a while. But it doesn't scale. Buzz ain't going to fund you guys forever. I'm doubtful about wide community funding support. But I hope I'm wrong.

Posted by pac10voter | reply to this comment
November 21, 2008 10:45 pm

I missed that Breen cartoon about "states" favoring Obama -- he forgot dangerous Cuba -- and the offer of an Obama t-shirt. What a riot. But really, Scott, you needn't pontificate about the "weakened" Union-Tribune: nothing will not change until it has disappeared and been reincarnated under new ownership, if that ever happens. The Union-Tribune could not possibly do more damage in its miserable end-days than it did in its heyday. The paper has always been a bell-jar over the populace -- keeping the community hermetically sealed away from inconvenient truths, fresh ideas, thoughtful argument or healthy change.

Posted by Fed Up | reply to this comment
November 8, 2008 4:53 pm

The UT is becoming increasingly irrlevelant in San Diego politics. While they still have one or two good reporters, almost every recommendation by its editorial board was repudiated by the local electorate. The leaders at the paper just don't have a clue as to where the city and the country are going. As such, the UT is no longer effective as a regional opinion shaper, which is probably just as well.

Posted by Watcher | reply to this comment
November 10, 2008 3:15 pm

Whether you think they are relevent or not, it doesn't matter; they represent a voice. San Diego County may have shifted to become a "blue" county this election cycle but the national exit polls show almost exactly the same numbers as 2004 for % that consider themselves conservative (34%), moderate (44%), and liberal (22%). This shift to conservatism began back with Reagan. It has declined marginally under a Bush presidency but not as much as you would think; most people still believe in smaller government, lower taxes, and a robust military. Although we saw a shift to "blue" this election cycle in this county, I would not dare to say that the U-T editorial board is "out of touch." If anything, they stand out from other liberal MSM as a desperately needed conservative voice.

Posted by CLB | reply to this comment
November 13, 2008 8:41 am

You are definitely not missing any Repubs: I mean Todd Gloria is a Republican w/ a capital "R". When you have the full endorsement of the Building Industry and missile defense contractors...you are a Republican. But then again, so was Toni. Voting Republican on everything EXCEPT gay marriage, does not make you a liberal Democrat. Sorry guys. And Goldsmith--It doesnt get any more GOP--I mean 100,000 for 1 flyer from an uber republican organization. $10,000 from McMillan to fly your banner at a Charger game. Voted against a womans right to choose every time and you spearheaded your own ban on gay marriage in prop 22. He should count for 3 Republicans.

Posted by christine | reply to this comment
November 10, 2008 6:54 pm

• Users may post more than one comment, but should not pose as multiple users. Multiple posts from the same IP address but with a different user name on each will be reviewed to determine whether abuse has occurred.
• Posts with overly personal attacks or unsubstantiated allegations may be edited or deleted.
• Please be patient with the posts -- there may be a delay before they appear on the site -- and make sure to enter the code in the "image verification" box.