Read the whole thing. Then ask yourself about The Tribune Company's management that not only endures but promotes a gang of Iagos within its west coast flagship. No wonder the paper is crumbling. I am not a shareholder of the company, but if I was, I would be asking what in the world is going on when the company allows itself to be attacked publicly day in and out in its own papers in a way designed to drive off readers and destroy revenue? The decline in the value of the Times and the Tirbune Company has injured millions of shareholders. Rutten et al have been burning down the building for years now, and taking with it the equity of investors who include a lot of retirees, some of them their former colleagues.
That's a liberal for you --focus blame and hatred on the Chandlers, and never ever ask what you might have contributed to the collapse and the cost you helped inflict on folks who were depending upon you. Look at the five year decline in the value of a Tribune share. All those newsroom lefties who spent the past half-decade complaining about Chicago, dragging their feet and refusing to innovate while constantly, intriguing, bickering and throwing brickbats have been defunding the retirement of every Times employee who went before them, as well as every other shareholder out there.
And the Chandlers, who haven't been running the place for years, get blamed by Rutten who no doubt speaks for all of the "veteran reporters" and upholders of the tradition.
Wow. I knew the place was dysfunctional, but I didn't know how deeply.
HH: Pleased to welcome now to the program Tim Rutten. He is a Los Angeles Times columnist, has been for a long time. He called me up on Thursday, and said let's talk radio. I said fine. Let's do it on the air. He said fine. Let's do it on tape delay. So here we are, talking on Thursday, playing it on Monday. Tim Rutten, what's on your mind?
TR: Talk radio.
HH: All right.
TR: I mean, talk about solipsism.
HH: Yes.
TR: I'm interviewing you interviewing me about interviewing people.
HH: That's what I enjoy most about having a radio program.
TR: There you go. Okay. So let's both look into the mirror of self-regard here. Actually, Hugh, I wanted to speak to you about something you blogged on, which is the apparent decline in ratings for political talk radio.
HH: And you are reading my blog every day, Tim?
TR: I read your blog every day.
HH: And what other bloggers do you read?
TR: What other bloggers do I read? Let's see. Well, L.A. Observed, of course.
HH: Kevin Roderick, very good.
TR: Kevin Roderick, who I noticed you drew well-deserved attention to.
HH: Best city blog in the United States. You bet.
TR: It really is, isn't it?
HH: Yup.
TR: He' fabulous. He's an old colleague of mine, but I...
HH: We forgive him for having worked for the Times.
TR: Yeah, yeah. We forgive him for defecting. The...you'll forgive anybody else who has, you know, an outlet to write about you. Who else do I...blogs that I look at regularly? Romanesko, of course.
HH: Of course, although that's not really a blog. That's more of a...
TR: He's not really a blog, is it? No.
HH: ...a vanity site for journalists. But go ahead.
TR: I like Roger Simon.
HH: Okay.
TR: Like him as a mystery novelist. I think it's an interesting blog.
HH: Do you read Powerline?
TR: I look at Powerline, yeah.
HH: Lileks? Do you read Lileks?
TR: Not as frequently, no. Not every day.
HH: Any lefty blogs?
TR: You asked about every day.
HH: Yeah.
TR: I'm trying to think of other ones. Oh, you know, I like Stephen Bainbridge, who blogs out from the UCLA Law School.
HH: But any lefties?
TR: Lefties. Um, no.
HH: You just can't stand the snarling?
TR: There...no, they're not as interesting, are they?
HH: No, they're not. And they're kind of snarling and vulgar and profane. It's more like a newsroom than a radio show.
TR: Well, you know, there's a lot of name-calling on the right, though.
HH: Where?
TR: I think...there's a not of...not on yours, actually.
HH: Or Powerline's.
TR: The word...you know, the word liar gets thrown around. There's a lot of conspiratorial thinking.
HH: You know, I was just listening to Paul Begala call everybody a liar in the world on the Sean Hannity show. It's like...
TR: Yeah. And you notice, that's the thing about our public discourse now? That whether it's in the blogosphere, whether it's on talk radio, whether it's just two guys shouting or two people shouting at each other on TV, nobody's every wrong anymore. They just...they're liars.
HH: Well, you know, I will hold out this program as an example of Erwin and John. Erwin Chemerinsky, John Eastman, come on here at least weekly. Sometimes more than that. Never ever going in that direction. Always throwing hammers at each other, but always doing so within the tradition of trying to persuade, rather than merely pummel.
TR: Well, that's right. That's right. And in fact, I don't know whether you recall, but I wrote a piece a year or so ago, where I talked about the death of persuasion as a goal in opinionated writing.
HH: I think that's true on the left. I don't think that's true on the right. I really don't. I think we're winning, because we do persuade.
TR: (laughter)
HH: I'm serious. I think we go about it one mind at a time, and the reason Air America cannot grow an audience is because they're not interested in persuading anyone. They're interested in pummeling perceived enemies, and you know...
TR: Well, I think this circles back to our topic, because I mean, I don't have...I don't know enough about Air America to have an opinion about it, and I have not followed this current scandal that some people see in their finances. I haven't looked at it.
HH: Why hasn't the Times looked at it, Tim?
TR: I don't know. I don't speak for the Times.
HH: I know, but...
TR: I don't write about the Times, as you know.
HH: I know, but why wouldn't a newspaper jump all over...
TR: I can't answer that, because I haven't asked, and so I don't know.
HH: If you see Dean Baquet wandering around the newsroom, would you ask him?
TR: Ask him that for you?
HH: Yes. Would you please cover Air America...
TR: Okay, I'll tell him Hugh Hewitt wants to know...
HH: Yeah.
TR: All right. The...I mean, we can do that.
HH: Do you read Michelle Malkin?
TR: Yes. Yes I do.
HH: All right. Good. Just checking. Keep going.
TR: Quite often through...you know, more through links, I think, than anything else.
HH: Right.
TR: Which is one of the nice things about the web, that you can pursue...you know, you can pursue parralel discussions through the linkage.
HH: Yup.
TR: I think it's one of the inherent strengths, I think, of the web.
HH: Now you're the media reporter, right?
TR: No, I write a column called Regarding Media. I'm not the media reporter.
HH: Well, okay. That's what I meant. It's on every Sunday, isn't it, in the Calendar?
TR: Saturday. Saturday.
HH: Saturday in the Calendar section.
TR: Saturday in the Calendar section.
HH: Now I have to ask you before we go on...
TR: Sure.
HH: Is that all you write for the Times?
TR: Is that all I write for the Times? Yeah. I do other things, of course, but that's all I write for the Times.
HH: No, but I...
TR: I do an occasional book review and things like that.
HH: But I mean, you make a great living on one column a week?
TR: If it were all I did, it would be a great living.
HH: Well, what else are you...
TR: I'm also...I'm also the associate editor of the Features section.
HH: Oh, I didn't know that.
TR: Also, I'm also the senior writer, so I have more titles than an Austrian field marshall.
HH: Well, you haven't got more titles than me, but nevertheless, it's...I'm glad to know that, because I was thinking, I want that once a week column job in the big bucks department. So anyway. Now...
TR: There's...I mean, as you lawyers say, you've assumed a fact not in evidence.
HH: Now I know that you're busy...what does a senior writer do?
TR: Basically, I hold the hands of distraught colleagues.
HH: Well, there are a lot of them, given the layoffs at the Times.
TR: I'm here for younger writers to come and talk to about the stories they're doing, you know, and...
HH: So, you're the eminence in the back. The gray eminence.
TR: Yeah, or the kibitzer. I mean, I'm like...at this point, I'm like what Murray Kempton said about editorial writers. You know, he said they're the people who come down from the hill after the battle and shoot the wounded?
HH: Yes. Okay, that's what you do.
TR: That's basically what I do.
HH: Now, I've got one more, and then I'll answer any of your questions.
TR: Sure.
HH: You know, the Times circulation is stuck at 900,000.
TR: Yeah.
HH: They've got a monopoly. They're going backwards. They lost 11% of ad revenue in the last six months. They lost circulation year to year. It's just...it's a river of red ink. Why can't...
TR: No, no, wait a minute. Stop, stop, stop. The Times turned a net profit in the hundreds of millions of dollars last year. So there's no river of red ink. There is a...all the things you said are true, but it does not translate into a...the Times has lost money only one year since the great Depression, and that's a...
HH: Okay, you're actually right in correcting me in that they continue to be profitable. But their numbers are on a death spiral.
TR: Well, I don't agree with death spiral, but the numbers are downward, yeah.
HH: And so, why is it that a monopoly institution, in a city and a state that loves information, can't seem to grow? What's going on?
TR: Well, why don't we...in fact, let's make...let's make the question even tougher. Let's say that even when the Times, you know, was circulating at a level that people considered highly successful, where it was more than a million a day, and a million two or three on Sunday. Given the size of the market, and the fact that we circulate from Santa Barbara to the Mexican border, and from the Pacific to the Colorado River, that's lousy penetration.
HH: Of course, and the population when you were at a million three on Sunday, the population was 20 million. Now it's 35 million.
TR: Yeah, that's right. So that's...that makes...throw that into the hopper, and then the question looks even tougher.
HH: So why...is it just the worst run newspaper in America of a major?
TR: No. No. I think there are two things...two or three things that are very specific, and then there's something more general, that...about the newspaper industry as a whole. The very specific things have to do with the fact that since this newspaper was acquired by the Tribune Corporation, more than a hundred million dollars a year has come off the business side. And the departments that suffered, particularly hard, were circulation and promotion. Now because of the fluidity of the population here, because you know, people move a lot, people die, people, you know, change their minds about what they want to do. And so, you have to, here, in this market, you have to get a very large number of new subscribers all the time, to even stay even, let alone grow. And the cuts in the circulation and promotional departments hurt our abilities to do that a great deal. Now steps have been taken now to remedy that, and I think you'll see some growth.
HH: But Tim, is it delusional not to look at the fact that the center-right in California hates your newspaper? Considers it, I think objectively, to be over the left edge of bias on a day in and day out basis? That Kinsley runs a hard left editorial page? That John Carroll...
TR: Or did. I mean, isn't he leaving?
HH: Yeah, but the damage is done, and that John Carroll went after Arnold with a machete, and didn't do anything to Gray Davis, and that the Jews on the west side hate the anti-Israel bias that is almost daily on the front page. Don't these things build up barriers to subscription that, you know, you just can't knock down anymore, so that when you go hunting for those new subscribers, people won't even answer the phone if they can see that it's the Times person calling? Or if you get lucky and you get someone, and you get to make a pitch at them, they're more likely to scream at you than anything else.
TR: Well, if I agreed that all those things were true, then I would say yes. Those are all factors. But I...
HH: Are any of those things true?
TR: But I don't think all those things are true.
HH: Are any of them?
TR: I think...I think that...that...the lack of attention in recent years to local news, and in that I would include state and local politics.
HH: Now wait. But that's not one of the things I mentioned. I mentioned being anti-Israel, being anti-Arnold, being anti-right wing...
TR: No. I don't agree...first of all, I don't agree that the Times is anti-Israel, and I say that as somebody...and I can say this, because I'm a columnist. I happen to be somebody who is, uh, you know, a fervent and committed supporter of the state of Israel, and the notion of political zionism.
HH: All right. Is it anti-Arnold?
TR: And I don't agree that this paper is anti-Israel.
HH: Okay. Is it anti-Arnold?
TR: Um, no. I don't think it's anti-Arnold.
HH: Is it anti-center right political theory?
TR: ...in the news column.
HH: Is it anti-Republican?
TR: Anti-Republican? I would say on its editorial pages, it is...on the editorial pages, it probably is, uh, hostile to a great, uh, a great bit of Republican ideology.
HH: Tim, if we did a secret ballot of everyone in the Times editorial department...not the opinion writing, but I mean, anyone who's a reporter, who they voted for, for president, wouldn't it be 90% or more for John Kerry? Or the Green?
TR: Probably less than that.
HH: What percent, do you think?
TR: If it were about like the industry standard?
HH: No. I mean, you know there. You work there. I know your people. I think it's 97%.
TR: (laughter)
HH: I've worked with Times reporters for fifteen years. It's the most liberal newsroom I've ever been in.
TR: Oh, no. It's hardly the most liberal newsroom.
HH: Which newspaper...
TR: Have you ever been in the New York Times' newsroom?
HH: Yes I have, in fact, and I think the New York Times works harder at being less biased than the L.A. Times does, by any count. You think the New York Times is more liberal?
TR: I think distance burnishes their standing in your eyes.
HH: Anyone other than the New York Times more liberal than you guys?
TR: Uh, more liberal? More liberal. You mean, as far as the staff goes?
HH: Yeah.
TR: I don't find the staff that liberal.
HH: But again, Tim...
TR: They seem sort of moderate, you know, middle of the road people to me. They're sort of unrelentingly bourgeois.
HH: Tell me. Are there any pro-life people in there?
TR: Sure.
HH: How many?
TR: I don't know. I don't ask people things like that.
HH: It just doesn't ever come up?
TR: But look. I work at the L.A. Times, and I'm pro-life.
HH: But I'm just asking just as a percentage. By the way, being pro-life, does that mean you favor a reversal of Roe V. Wade?
TR: Do I favor a reversal of Roe V. Wade? No.
HH: Well, then you're not really pro-life. I mean, as the term is understood. It's kind of Orwellian.
TR: Now, wait a minute. Wait a minute. As you understand the term? Or as I understand the term?
HH: No, as the world understands. If we asked like a thousand people...
TR: No, I don't know that it translates into being against Roe V. Wade. And, you know, I think you can make an argument that Roe V. Wade was wrongly decided as a matter of law. I think as a matter of...I am opposed to abortion, but I think in a pluralistic society...
HH: Why?
TR: Why?
HH: Yeah.
TR: Because out of religious conviction on my part.
HH: But what's that religious conviction? That life begins at conception?
TR: Um, that life begins at conception?
HH: Yes.
TR: Uh, I think the question is out on that. But, you know, I'm a Roman Catholic. But the truth is that the Church is...the Church's approach to this issue, and the issue of when life begins, has...has been more fluid over the last hundred years than people tend to credit. Even Aquinas spoke in terms of insoulment.
HH: But I'm wondering if you like Benedict XVI?
TR: Do I like Benedict XVI?
HH: Yeah.
TR: I don't know him yet.
HH: What do you think of his...
TR: Well, you don't like or dislike a Pope...
HH: Sure you do. What do you think? People show up in Rome because they disliked John Paul II?
TR: Well, I don't think that's...I think that's treating...that's treating, you know, the Papacy like it was a rock star.
HH: Well, he was. And I think Benedict is becoming one. I'm monopolizing the time. I don't mean to do that.
TR: You are. That's okay. That's all right. You're interesting to listen to.
HH: Anyway, go ahead, Tim. We're going to have fun with this on Monday. What do you need to ask me?
TR: We are going to have fun with it? Why? How are you going to have fun?
HH: I'm just going to play it for people, because I'll tell you, reporters are the most self-delusional people, and writers and newspaper people, as to why their newspaper is hated. And I honestly believe it's like being a drunk. Until you guys own up to the problem, you're never going to get sober.
TR: Well let me ask you a question, though. If that's the case, let's say hypothetically. And you know, this is interesting. Hypothetically, if that were the case, then wouldn't that translate into overwhelming, you know, Republican, conservative Republican electoral victories throughout our circulation area?
HH: No.
TR: Why not?
HH: No. What it turns out to is underwhelming subscription performance, because...
TR: But why, why would...
HH: Because Republicans are much more likely...
TR: Why would it manifest itself in one way and not the other?
HH: Because Republicans are much more likely than Democrats, on average, to be a purchaser of a daily newspaper. On average. They have more income. They have more interest in daily news. They're much more involved in business, and therefore care about advertising and sections like business. All right? So on average. So your subscription base should be at least 50% Republican. My guess is it's 30%. Maybe 20%. And the touch rate is even lower. So the problem...
TR: Well, can I sound like a blogger here and ask you, I mean, how do you know that's true?
HH: I'm intuiting.
TR: Oh, you're intuiting.
HH: I'm just guessing. I'm just guessing.
TR: Oh, you're guessing.
HH: But I'm working off of...
TR: But because the radio form requires it, you're stating it as if it were a surety.
HH: No, no, no. Because...
TR: ...because doubt's very hard, or...
HH: No. Intuition is often the best way to go when you have a bunch of facts which are out there, that you have to line up. For example, the highest rated talk show host in Los Angeles is Rush Limbaugh. He has the biggest audience by far.
TR: Uh-huh.
HH: I think the second highest rated talk show hosts in Los Angeles is John and Ken, who are, if anything, you know, sort of Paleo-con, anti-immigrant bashing, pots and pans bangers, but they are out there, and they've got big numbers.
TR: Uh-huh.
HH: Now these people have audiences that won't touch the Los Angeles Times, even though those audiences do not represent a majority in the City of Angels. They are obviously news consumers who love news junkee-dom, and they won't touch your newspaper, because, you know, it's a tip sheep for the Democratic Party. That's why I can intuit from a bunch of facts that you folks don't have the subscription you should have, if you were remotely balanced.
TR: But I mean...the notion that Republicans are more likely to subscribe to a newspaper than Democrats...where does that...is that also an intuition?
HH: Higher income. No, no. That's based...go to Ben Wattenberg. Who has more money. Republicans have more money. If you have more disposable income, you're much more likely to spend it on something that's not a necessity. You have to agree with that, Tim.
TR: Um, okay. No, I don't have to agree with it. But...
HH: You agree it's persuasive?
TR: For example, is that true, say, of...is it true of Jews? Is is true of Episcopalians?
HH: I think Jews are much more likely to be newspaper buyers, because of income and education differential, than, say...
TR: But aren't they also likely to be Democrats?
HH: They are, and they are buying your paper. That's all you're selling it to...
TR: Oh.
HH: ...are left-wing, upper-income people. But as a matter of course...
TR: Who are Jews?
HH: No, you've got a much broader base than that, obviously. But the point being that if you're going to offend the party that has the most money, you're going to lose marginal subscriptions by the tens of thousands, if not the hundreds of thousands.
TR: So, we should gear our coverage to people who have money?
HH: No. Your coverage should be fair.
TR: And it should be geared to make sure we keep readers?
HH: No. Your coverage should be fair, not go out of the way to offend the center right...
TR: Oh, okay.
HH: ...should not be condescending towards the conservative side of the aisle. It should at least have one...
TR: No, no. It should not be. You know, we agree on that.
HH: Do you have one columnist...let's talk. Patt Morrison, Tim Rutten, the late and departed, and we miss him, David Shaw. We've got, of course, Robert Scheer, who represents all that's good and right in America.
TR: Uh-huh.
HH: We've got Peter King. I mean, we've got...
TR: No, Peter King doesn't write a column...
HH: Has he stopped doing it now?
TR: Years ago.
HH: Okay. John Balzar's quit, too. Right?
TR: Yeah.
HH: So all...but I mean, if you go back for the last ten years, and who's the guy, Steve, on the Metro page?
TR: Lopez.
HH: Yeah, Lopez. And George, of course. George Sleepy Skelton up in Sacramento. If you list all these people, there is not one conservative there, in the fifteen years I've been reading your newspaper. Not one conservative columnist.
TR: You don't think George is fairly conservative?
HH: Oh, George? C'mon. No! And I intuit that every day that I read his column, which isn't often, because there's nothing there.
TR: I don't know. I'm a pretty conservative guy.
HH: Tim, you're no more a conservative than I'm...
TR: I mean, listen. I go...you know, I...
HH: ...thank I am a John Kerry supporter.
TR: I go to the Church I was baptised into. I've been married to one woman all my life. I mean, I have, you know, kids I take care of. What's more conservative than that?
HH: I think you live a very conservative lifestyle, and that you are an absolute barking liberal. But we love you anyway, Tim. But you're a barking liberal.
TR: (laughter)
HH: All right. Back to talk radio. Go ahead.
TR: All right. Let's talk about this talk radio thing.
HH: Yup.
TR: It's actually...what do you think is going on here? Because these...the ratings for political talk radio are down across the country.
HH: Now, let me add a couple of provisos.
TR: Sure.
HH: In my case, my audience has grown six months to six months, because I'm adding stations. And so, as a matter of gross...
TR: That's why I called you.
HH: Yeah, and that's why...but to look at Rush, Rush can't add any more stations.
TR: Right.
HH: Rush has completely super-saturated the market, and as a result, he is dependent solely on the information cycle, and the story cycle. We are at the low ebb of a four-year political news cycle, which is the August after a presidential election. It is the worst time to do talk radio, period, absent some extraordinary event that requires and compels people to seek out information on the quarter hour. That's why he's down. He will be back up, and higher than he was, in three years from now, which is at the very best of times in talk radio, which is the August before a presidential election, after the first convention. So Rush's numbers are simply cyclical. What I think is interesting, though, is if you look not at the particular...
TR: I wasn't asking you about Rush. I was asking you about the field, generally. But that's interesting to use him as an example.
HH: And that's why...because I've seen most of the stuff that takes off of his slight dip in some markets, and then goes into an unsubstantiated analysis. The key thing to ask is, if you took all the political talk hosts that are out there, and that would include me, Michael Medved, Dennis Prager, Laura Ingraham, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, I guess you can count Bill O'Reilly as a conservative, some people would say no, he's more of a libertarian or an iconoclast, whatever, and you line them all up, and you asked, year to year, not even four year to four year, is their market bigger than it was this time last year. My guess is yes. And that, I don't have those numbers, because I don't have access to all the books for all the hosts. But if you look at the share of the world going to new media, and that's really the most important thing...
TR: Right.
HH: ...new media versus old media, and you add in Fox News, talk radio, Weekly Standard, National Review, but most importantly, blog audience readership, the center-right media is vastly farther ahead than it was five years ago. And probably year to year, although again, August is the toughest month, is the cruelest month in the news business for political news. So I think it's a great time to be a talk radio show host, provided that you're coherent, rational, which means you're a conservative.
TR: (laughter) Well, here's one for you. Let me tell you...I threw this same question to Michael Harrison, who I'm sure you know.
HH: I don't know Michael Harrison.
TR: ...who does this magazine...
HH: Oh, Talkers, yeah, okay. I thought he was a host. Yeah, I know Michael.
TR: ...and whose been around this business for a long time. And he cautions against making too much out of the ratings, partly because they're, as I've discovered, they're gathered with such imprecision, market to market, and I guess you guys are all in the midst of shifting over, away to a new rating method, away from a diary system.
HH: There is the people meter, and I am looking forward to that, because...
TR: Yeah, which obviously makes a big difference.
HH: You know, a person...and because I'm playing this on the air...
TR: Sure.
HH: There's a lot I can't say, but a lot of people who listen to talk radio will not be bothered to record what they listen to, because of who they are, their income, and their busy level. That's why Nielson's television ratings are superior in many respects. I may have to dtop this out of our interview, by the way, Tim, because you're just forbidden about talking about Arbitron on the air. Did you know that?
TR: Believe me, I trust you guys to edit as you see fit.
HH: I just can't talk about Arbitron on the air, but I can tell you about it. If you talk about Arbitron on the air, you'll be exiled from a book, and that will kill you, your ratings. But what happens is, if they pay a buck a day, or two bucks a day to someone to fill out a diary, well, all of my listeners, and there legion, who are making six figures for example, are simply not going to do that as a matter of course. They might do it out of love, but they're not going to do that for money, and so you're going to oversample shows that appeal to folks that are at lower income, lower education levels, and you're going to undersample the opposite.
TR: Uh-huh.
HH: What I think is the most important and telling thing, is a show sold out at its current ad card. I mean, you listen for PSA's. You're never going to hear a PSA on the Hugh Hewitt Show, period. We're sold out. We're sold out until next year, right now. And we're going to raise the rates ridiculously, and we'll still sell out, because what advertisers have discovered on the Hugh Hewitt Show is, my listeners buy their products and patronize their stores, and they like that. I'd recommend, give Roger Schlessinger a call, by the way. Roger is a mortgage broker.
TR: Uh-huh.
HH: He advertises on most every single radio station you can imagine. He's been on them all. And...he's on liberal radio, he doesn't care. He's on Ed Schultz right now. He's on Laura. He's on me. He's been on Michael and Dennis. I don't know that he's ever been on Rush, because the card is so high. But generally speaking, ask him where the audience is, by virtue of who calls him, and it's a very interesting conversation. Advertisers are the best link to find out who's being listened to, passionately.
TR: Interesting. Well, you know, Harrison, as I say, cautions against this, but he does say something interesting, and I wonder how this sits with you. And that is that he regards the identification of talk show hosts with particular parties as an anomaly in the history of this medium. And that traditionally, political talk show hosts were populists who were opposed to big government, opposed to big business, you know, for the little guy, politically independent, and not partisan of either party. In fact, they would, you know, damn both parties equally.
HH: Well, Tim...
TR: Wait a minute. And he says...he wonders if that kind of political talk show host isn't the future of the medium again.
HH: No, he's wrong.
TR: Okay, why is he wrong.
HH: Well, because a) nothing is anomalous in a medium that is less than 80 years old. I mean, let's face it. Radio goes up in Pittsburgh in 1922. Talk shows cannot have debuted until what? 1950 or something like that. That's like saying in 1970 that the sitcom is anomalous, because it doesn't look like Jack Benny.
TR: Right.
HH: The first generation of talkers are like the first generation of television variety shows...
TR: Right.
HH: And they've moved on with increasing rapidity and speed to segment the market into a variety of very important demographics. My show is listened to...yes, there are liberals who listen to it. There are Democrats who listen to it. But it is primarily a show for political junkees who lean center-right. And certainly, a Republican is most comfortable here. They're not going to go listen to Air America every single day. That's why I try and be open to Democrats. I try and put liberals on to make sure I maintain connection with that audience...
TR: Uh-huh.
HH: But I don't think you're going to find quote a populist is going to have legs, long haul, because folks want to know specifically, and with some transparancy, where is their information coming from. For example, Tim, who'd you vote for, for president?
TR: Oh, I never say that.
HH: You see, I know that. And no journalist ever does, because they're not transparent. That's why they're not trusted.
TR: No, no, no. That's not...it's not a matter of transparency.
HH: Well, I don't know what...it's a matter of opaque...
TR: Why...it...doesn't transparency connote relevance?
HH: No. Transparency connotes you'll answer any question anyone puts to you concerning stuff that is of interest to the public.
TR: Oh, no. There's all kinds of questions. If you ask me questions about my sex life, I won't answer those, either.
HH: No, but your sex life and your vote are different, because you're not giving people advice on sex. You're giving people advice on politics.
TR: I don't give people advice on politics.
HH: Oh, Tim. Oh, Tim. I've read your column for a lot of years. I'll go back and clip a few things.
TR: All right. Go ahead.
HH: But in any event, I asked this of, for example, Dana Milbank of the Washington Post. If you get this week's New York...do you get the New Yorker?
TR: Sure.
HH: There's a long profile of me.
TR: Right. I've read it.
HH: I had this conversation with Nick Lemann...
TR: Lemann, yeah. It's quite a good one, too.
HH: ...about transparency. And he is adament that it should not be answered. I'm adament that in the new era of media, everyone is known to come to everything with an agenda. And over the long haul, the populist who criticizes everyone has no more credibility than the Los Angeles Times, because nobody trusts someone who will not be completely transparent when it comes to their political opinions. And they are afraid, and I think they're right to be afraid, that you, Tim, or the Times, or, I use the example of Len Downey who doesn't even vote. You know, he's...
TR: Right.
HH: He's Caesar's wife. But that is absolutely not persuasive to a modern American who lives in the information age. They want to know what do you believe, and then I'll correct for the roll of the green. You a golfer?
TR: I'm not, but I know the game.
HH: Yeah, so...well, I'm going to correct for the break. And that's the best way to assure credibility, and so I think over time, the audience is going to reward credible, transparent, entertaining, smart, funny hosts, not a pre-packaged set of...you know, I'll listen to a liberal if they're any damn good. I just haven't found one, yet. I mean, I really haven't. I have not found...Mark Germain, who works over at KABC as Mr. KABC...
TR: Uh-huh.
HH: He's the funniest liberal in America. He ought to be nationally syndicated. They can't, you know, because of his moniker as Mr. KABC. He is quite clearly the most talented, liberal talk show host in America that I have heard, and I listen to them everywhere. But because of his niche, he can't syndicate. Eventually, they're going to find, like liberal bloggers. Eventually, there's going to be liberal bloggers who are attractive to the right, in the way that Powerline attracts the center-left, or I attract the center-left. And that's why I'm trying to get Martin Burns.
TR: Center-right, you mean.
HH: No, no. I attract the center-left to my blog.
TR: Oh, do you?
HH: Oh, I get lots of e-mail from them. I don't attract the Kos people. I mean, those people are crazy, by and large. But I can and do attract, you know, Joshua Micah Marshall readers, and things like that. Eventually, a lefty's going to arrive, whose got a sense of humor. I'm trying to get Martin Burns, who was my director and producer at Life and Times forever, to be a blogger, because you know, he's an old-fashioned, crazy liberal. But he's funny, and he's not vulgar, and he's interesting. That's where the market's going to go, not for pre-packaged political positions, but to people who can entertain and inform, and do so with credibility.
TR: And you see that continuing?
HH: Absolutely. I keep adding...
TR: Through election cycle after election cycle?
HH: Yeah. I picked up Tampa Bay and Sarasota. Those are Salem pickups. We just added Salt Lake City next week. I added ten stations in Northern Minnesota which are outside of my network. And I think it's because the product I offer is the product of the future, which is, you know, intelligent talk radio, smart, funny, I hope, not all the time, with a lot of guests. It's very much the model of cable television. The reason that O'Reilly succeeds in cable television is that some people like politics so much, or public affairs, or public policy, that they'll tune in night after night and listen to that stuff. And if and when your newspaper actually becomes a vibrant place of debate, as opposed to, you know, the Pravda of the West Coast, it will too attract a new audience, because people like...I mean, Max Boot was the smartest thing that Kinsley did. I now have a reason, once a week, to open up your editorial pages and take a look and see what's going on there. It's the only reason, and then, all of a sudden, Margaret shows up, or, you know, Bob Scheer's back. And I mean, how many times can you read the same column? Some day, and Sipchen was sort of into this, when they started the Outside the Tent stuff...
TR: Uh-huh.
HH: But then, I became too radioactive for Outside the Tent. I see they're on round two, and they haven't called me again. So I'm a little offended, Tim. That's a smart play. And if I were them, I'd find the Tim Rutten of the center-right, because you're Tim Rutten of the center-left, and I'd award them the same column.
TR: I don't know where you get these designations.
HH: I get them by reading. I mean, it's not hard. It's sort of like there are no secret handshakes. If you take a hundred people in a room...
TR: Right.
HH: And 90 of them say Tim Rutten's a center-left liberal, then you're a center-left liberal. Or as the old Irish saying, so if everyone says you're drunk, you better sit down. The L.A. Times, a liberal newspaper. You're a center-left columnist, and that's okay. We're not running you out of the country. Not yet.
TR: Not yet, no.
HH: But for the record, that's a joke.
TR: (laughter) Is it?
HH: Yes, of course.
TR: I know it is.
HH: What would I do for a living if I didn't have people like you to beat up on? It would be a very sad day.
TR: That's right. No, you'd have to go back to practicing law.
HH: I know, and I don't want to do that.
TR: No, I don't blame you. No, you know, I think that in the practice of journalism, most of these labels are not helpul
HH: Uh, Michael Kelly, the late great Michael Kelly, who was my favorite guest. He held down the murderer's row slot until he was killed in Iraq. He used to say that is hogwash. Journalism is a craft, and everyone has a label, and everyone can be understood to have bias. Let's just make sure we're honest about it. And I agree with Michael Kelly.
TR: No, you know, I have...believe me. I have great, great respect for Michael Kelly and his work. And great respect for what he did with the Atlantic magazine, which I think is, you know, just remarkable.
HH: It was a great magazine.
TR: It was indeed. And I think it's...it was just a terrible tragedy what happened to him. But I think he's wrong about that, because I think it is possible to do the...and I agree about journalism being a craft. That's what it is. And I think you can correct for your...in news reporting, you can certainly correct for your personal predilections and/or biases, and/or personal beliefs. There's lots of...there's lots because it is a craft. There are lots of conventions you can observe about fairness, about quoting people accurately, and correctly in context, about being fair-minded about facts, that correct for those things. So the notion that all journalism is irremediably biased, is...I mean, you know, it's sort of like Heisenberg's princple, which is absolutely essential to the world of, you know, quantum physics. But the truth of the matter is, you know, we live in what's still essentially a Newtonian world.
HH: Uh, Tim, what I am saying is, I go with Gresham's Law. Bad newspapers drive out good newspapers.
TR: I agree with that completely.
HH: If you have to have conventions to correct bias, then you're admitting that you bring bias to the newsroom, and that the consumer, allegedly the people you're trying to serve, would be better served by the same transparency that many on the left, for example, demanding of John Roberts, but which journalists refuse. I mean, you just refused to tell me who you vote for president, and I always ask journalists, and they always refuse, and it's always the game, set, match.
TR: Sure, but I think John Roberts would be right to resist that question, too, becuase it...
HH: Oh, he absolutely will, because he's going to a separate but equal branch of government. You are not. You're just...you guys are selling soap. You're selling ink. And folks have got lots of places to buy ink now, and they're not going to buy it from people whom will not reveal the ingredients.
TR: But it's as if all of your beliefs determine every single one of your actions.
HH: No. Absolutely not. Only if...
TR: And the notion that people would be better off...I'm always slightly fuzzy on why it is that people would be better off knowing these things about you, than they would be discussing what's actually on the page.
HH: Because...I illustrate this. Each year, I go and teach a class at UCI, taught by one of your colleagues at the L.A. Times, and I begin...it's about a hundred people. And I begin by asking a series of questions, who'd you vote for? Do you own a gun? Do you support abortion, etc., and pretty soon, I've sorted the class out from left to right. All right? So the hard left people are on the left side of the auditorium. And the right-wing conservatives, and the God Squad-ers are over here on the right.
TR: Uh-huh.
HH: And then I ask them, would a newspaper put out by the ten percent on the left, on the same story assignments as the newspaper put out by the ten percent on the right, be different newspapers? And they all realize the answer is of course they would be. Of course they would be. Inevitably. Well the fact of the matter is, big journalism is put out by those ten percent on the left. The people on the right are off making money in business. They don't care to go off and work terrible long hours for no money at Poughkeepsie-land for three years, before getting to move up to mid-level Poughkeepsie-land. And so, the fact is that bias is there. And once those questions start to be answered, it will be impossible to deny it anymore, Tim. That's why they're not answered, not because it's some kind of assault, or some kind of inquisition...
TR: Well, I don't think it's an assault. I think it's an irrelevance.
HH: Well, see, that's what the public doesn't agree with. That's why you're stuck at 900,000 and falling like a rock, is because what you think is an irrelevance...
TR: Did the public realize this after we were at a million two?
HH: Yes. I think...
TR: Something occurred in the interim that caused them to realize this?
HH: Well, actually what happened, and I wrote about this at length in the book Blog...
TR: I read that book.
HH: ...is that the elites continued to reproduce themselves without any care whatsoever for the increasing degree of ideological, I'll say fervor. Best example of this, if you compare the natural world reporting, naturalist reporting of the Times in the 40's and 50's, even the 60's, with the environmentalist beat in the Times today, you will find that your environmental writers are edgy, lefty, hard-core environmentalists. And that...like Marla Cone, with whom I've worked in the past.
TR: Uh-huh.
HH: Marla is an activist. She's an activist inside of a newspaper. Folks who disagree with that position, or who have been injured by the environmental community in their quest for endangered species litigation and classification, don't trust Marla. They never will. But you guys aren't aware of that, because you...there's no...you're sheilds are down. You have not canary in the mine. I mean literally. I think you have no idea...
TR: This is your field as a lawyer, right?
HH: It was. Yeah. I don't do much of it...
TR: I mean, it was.
HH: Yes.
TR: Right.
HH: And so, and I represent landowners, and I'd read the Marla Cone stuff, and we'd read it together, and we'd just shake our heads. And I'll tell you, I honestly think that you guys don't know how poisoned the air is you breathe, because there's nobody there to say, or they're afraid to say, hey. This is a one-party state. We're all pro-choice, we're all pro-Kerry, we're all anti-Bush. And as a result, you can't correct it. You don't know you're sick. In the world of radio, we know we're sick, book to book. We know we're sick when we can't sell an ad, and it's my fault. You know, responsibility at the Times is defused among...how many editorial employees do you have? Two hundred? Three hundred? You know, if this show...
TR: I don't know. Nine hundred.
HH: Okay. If this show is failing, it's Hugh Hewitt's fault. I mean, we'll blame the producer as well, but it's my fault. And so, that kind of ownership of your decline is one of the reasons why I think it's irresistable. I only have five minutes left. Can I ask you one more thing?
TR: Oh, of course.
HH: When Hollywood figures out that people are buying, getting their impressions of movies from Fandango and from other places, and when Craig's List and Re/Max, and all the classified advertising for real estate goes away, you guys are in...I mean, new media is going to crush you. You're just not going to have any revenues left. Does that alarm you? Or are you close enough to retirement that you can sprint home?
TR: No, I'm not that close to retirement. And moreover, I would still be concerned about the future of newspapers. I think that there's a very good future for newspapers. I don't think all those things are going to happen. And I also think that newspapers are going to become much more adept in using new media to reach readers.
HH: If they ever learn how to blog, that'll be a good start.
TR: Blogging is one thing. I think that blogging...I think, you know, now, this is more your field than mine, but I suspect that at some point, there's a kind of convergence that will occur, between blogging and newspapers. I think that bloggers, you know, right now the relationship between blogs and newspapers is symbiotic. I mean, if the so-called mainstream...
HH: Yes, you give us the target, and we hit it.
TR: If the so-called mainstream media didn't exist, you guys would have to invent it, because you wouldn't have anything to write about otherwise.
HH: I know. You give us the target, and we hit it. You betcha. We love you.
TR: I know you do.
HH: Keep distorting the news. Keep sending Dan Rather out to report on forged documents, and we'll get bigger.
TR: I don't know. You know, I can't be responsible for this vast liberal conspiracy and Dan Rather.
HH: It's not a conspiracy. That's the great thing. It's never been a conspiracy.
TR: It's never been...so it's never been secretive. I keep forgetting.
HH: It's never been in secret, and it's not about coordination?
TR: So, just to steal your next line, it's never been secretive.
HH: If you took five thousand Republicans, and you put them to work...if you let Ken Mehlman staff the newspapers of the New York Times, Washington Post and the L.A. Times, and he got to pick everone, they would turn out to be as badly biased on the center-right as you folks are on the left. And that's just the way it would be, because people, unless there's balance in the ranks, it's going to turn out badly for fairness, truth, and objectivity.
TR: I don't know. You know, most of my career, Hugh, I have to tell you, there are very few things that have been looked on in major American journalism, in the newspapers I've been around, than an obvious display of politics.
HH: Oh, Tim. And Tim...
TR: It's one of the worst criticisms, most damaging criticisms you can make of...
HH: Of course. And I'm sure you read your old boss', John Carroll's speech up in Oregon.
TR: I did.
HH: ...in which he was completely oblivious to the reality, and I believe the objective impact of his anti-Arnold jihad last year during the recall. He just doesn't believe it was there. He doesn't think it happened, and yet, you know how many people cancelled their subscriptions that week more than I do. It was more than ten thousand. The question is, they were all wrong. They were all wrong about the L.A. Times being biased against Arnold. Or when George Will's syndicated column was edited by your people...
TR: Well, wait a minute. Were they all...does it mean that they're all wrong, because you don't agree with the reason that they...
HH: No. I'm saying that you guys don't realize the problem of how deep your bias is. You don't see it. And that when ten thousand plus people cancel their subscriptions because they see it, you reject their critique as being emotional, or ill-considered, or something, as opposed to the marketplace, and the wisdom of the many, to quote the chairman of Sony. And when a George Will syndicated column is altered by your editorial page editor, to remove the name of one of his (Bill Clinton's) accusers, and people go ballistic, you folks, you know, you rush out an apology a few days later, and you say you're sorry. But it never occurred to that individual, or any of the people in the heirarchy, that that would be wrong to do, because, well, everybody knows that Broderick, Juanita Broderick was a liar. Everyone knows that. And so, that's the...
TR: I'm never more suspicious than when I hear the phrase everybody knows. I've never...my brows never rise higher than when I hear that phrase.
HH: Then how could her...that's one specific thing we should end on. How could an editor at the L.A. Times erase from a George Will column, the name of Juanita Broderick?
TR: I haven't the faintest idea.
HH: It did happen. You're aware of it?
TR: No, I'm aware of that. Yeah.
HH: And so, doesn't...
TR: Hey, you know what? There are millions upon millions of individual decisions that go into the production of a newspaper every day. It's a miracle that more of them aren't wrong.
HH: Especially since everyone making them is a liberal.
TR: No, particularly...No, because they're all humans.
HH: Geez. Oh, Tim. I have to go do a show. But this is going to air on Monday.
TR: Okay. I hope this is not...
HH: And I hope you'll come back some time.
TR: Oh, any time. But I hope...you know, I don't think this is as interesting as it could have been.
HH: Oh, it's going to be very interesting to the audience.
TR: Okay.
HH: Because I think you're the real deal. I mean, you are a genuine newspaper man who loves newspapers, and you love the L.A. Times, and you're one of their big hitters. And you don't get it. I mean, it's..
TR: Oh, I do get it. I just don't agree with you.
HH: I know. That's what I mean. You don't...and as a result, the audience is going to listen to that...
TR: I understand all these facts, I just don't make the same conclusions from them that you do.
HH: Have they got and e-mail...have you got an e-mail where they can write you at? And I'm sure some of them...don't blame me for the nasty stuff.
TR: Sure. They can get me at timothy.rutten@latimes.com.
HH: Timothy Rutten at L.A. Times.com.
TR: Do me one favor, okay?
HH: Sure.
TR: I want to make it clear, and this is an important distinction between talk radio and the blogosphere and newspapers. They're only going to see fragments of this interview in the column. You know, there are going to be just, you know, a few sentences inferred, because that's what a column interview is.
HH: Sure.
TR: Now, if we had done, just make it clear that there's no intention, you know, to suppress, or censor, or anything like that...
HH: Oh, no. It's a budget.
TR: It's a matter that there's very limited space, and this is the use we make of it. If this was an extended interview, like the kind you did with Lemann, then there'd be a lot more.
HH: Oh, that I will make sure they understand. But that's not what they're going to object to.
TR: That wasn't the purpose of the call.
HH: Yeah, they're not going to object to that. They're going to object to...they're not going to object to anything. They're going to sigh with the realization that the Bastille is still held the wrong side, and must someday be liberated. Tim Rutten, a pleasure to have you on. Take care, friend.
TR: All right. Goodbye.
End of interview.