SAIGONBOB

Why the Los Angeles Times should also be a Radio Station

    Before I get into it, I should mention that Los Angeles Times editor Jim O'Shea, should probably stay away from local news outlets for awhile...until he really figures out that there really isn't any downtown, or there-there.  He recently has been portrayed as a little, "ah-shucks."
    He must remember,unlike the Windy City, this is a town that can't support a professional football team, and anyone west of Bundy in West LA, who is over 40-years of age, and can't afford plastic surgery--they are allowed to cover their face for the photo on their drivers license.
    As comedy writer Fred Allen once stated, "Behind the tinsel and glitter of Hollywood, lies the real tinsel and glitter of Hollywood."
    Why the Times should be radio:
    Ask Steve Lopez: people are stuck in their cars for so long that there is a catering service which serves breakfast for drivers stuck in the fast lane on the 405 freeways driving south from the San Fernando Valley.
    The radio is an escape. We invented "drive-time" and the "Sig-alert." (Named after KMPC radio GM, Lloyd Sigman)
    Wouldn't it be wonderful to listen to LA Times reporters from all over the world, giving insight into the stories they have just covered.

    Instead of some crazed, and angry talk show host,drivers would be able to listen to real dialog about what is happening in Los Angeles, the stories around the world, and what the folks at the Times are working on for the next day.

     It's legitimate, and credible.  People in southern California like that.

    Thanks for reading:

    Bob Kholos   
   

David Hiller-Publisher Los Angeles Times

    I was very critical when the announcement was made that the Chicago Tribune had decided to make, yet again, another change in management at the Los Angeles Times.
    A lot of us feel a sense of "ownership" of the Times, but in this case I was wrong to lump, in essence, a change of leadership with the honor of the individuals at the newspaper who stood up for the integrity of the news room.

    Mr. Hiller, the new publisher at the Times, was the guest speaker of the Annenberg School for Communications at USC on January 30th.

    He explained the complications of the "new media" within the newspaper business.

    The day he "stood on the desk" to announce that by "mutual agreement" the editor, Dean Baquet, was leaving ( who has taken a job inside the beltway as bureau chief of the New York Times) "was one of the hardest days of my life."

    Then, Mr. Hiller, outlined some of the problems facing the paper...he gave examples and it made a lot of sense.

    Car advertisements created, in the past, a lot of income for the newspaper.  But, the revenue has declined about 50%.  That is a paycheck for many reporters.

    He explained how they had to transition to the website: www.latimes.com to increase income and make it more of a viable alternative for the readership.

    It appears, from David Hiller's comments, that the  Times web page has increased, something like 20% of dollar revenues from these same auto dealerships.

    He explained his philosophy of the news business, and was very gracious in answering some tough questions from the crowd.

    I actually like the guy, even though he is from Chicago. (kidding--my Mother was born and grew up in Chicago during the mob days of Al Capone-and when the Cubs had a better baseball team)

    So, I owe him an apology---Let's see if he can do for the Los Angeles Times what Starbucks did for the Coffee Business.

    As a former political press secretary, I understand the worth and necessity of having a great newspaper in Los Angeles.

    When the Los Angeles Times lets the local beat reporters go at it....the city is better off...because it stays an honest city.  We need the Times to be powerful.

    The only thing I would emphasize to Mr. Heller, is to not get into the trap of trying to make it a "national" paper, but keep the focus on the local.

    For Los Angeles, local is national.  Remember, when Japan's Emperor Hirohito decided to leave his country for the first time ever, and visit America: He came to Los Angeles.

    The paper is in transition and no one, including Mr. Hiller, knows who will purchase it.  But, the publisher has the responsibility of making the paper stronger during this uncertain time.

    Thanks for reading:

    Bob Kholos

 

How Television is Killing the Democratic Party

  I've been a democrat for so long, sometimes I only criticize my own party for the purposes of change, and leave the GOP out of it.
    I figure the Republican Party is the "party of the rich, by the rich and for the rich."   They have some redeeming factors: Lincoln freed the slaves, and Eisenhower ended the war in Korea, and federalized the National Guard in order to begin the integration of public schools in the south.
    But, as Democrats mostly represent the working people, Republicans generally represent the captains of industry.
     Maury Weiner,former Chief of Staff to Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley, disagrees with some of my earlier postings on "togetherness" of the two parties, and suggested that important issues have to be fought out in the open in order to get progressive change.
    He, rightly, pointed out that much of the 500- million dollars that will be spent during the next presidential campaign will be as a result of television advertising.
    Although, Maury and I may differ on how to get national health insurance, energy independence, and protect new immigrants from having their children pulled from their arms in the middle of the night by the police---we agree on what makes modern political campaigns so expensive: Your Television set!
    I know what the problem is, but I am not sure how to solve it.
    Television air time is corporate time.  That is how they make money.
    Candidates have to hire advertising firms to make convincing commercials and then spend millions of dollars buying "air" time on the television stations.
    So, Mr. Weiner suggests we make them provide "free" air time to the candidates.
    Once again, I agree.  But, how do we or they determine who is a legitimate candidate, and how do they keep their profit margins when they can't sell "soap?"
    Only allowing political candidates certain times and limiting exposure, in itself, may constitute an unconstitutional act: It limits free speech.
    If the broadcasting networks push the candidates message over to C-Span2 for example, fewer people will watch, even though those viewers will be well informed.
    Right now, there are at least 5 viable candidates competing for the Democratic Party nomination for president.  They should all receive free television time in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada.  What happens when they get to California, Illinois and Texas?
    Since virtually no one gets to know the candidate, like they do in the smaller states, it ALL depends on television and radio.
    Therefore, how much free time should the station allow, and to whom?
    Do they virtually black out the most popular shows during prime time a couple weeks before the primary and just give the hours to candidates?
    Should they allow a bunch of 30 second commercials about the candidate to air, or should they make the candidate face the camera and give a 10 minute speech?
    Is it right to take a profit making business, and turn it into a non-profit corporation during the political season?
    Should it be just for the Presidential contests, or do we include Governor and Mayor?
    Other than going back to the old style of picking candidates by the major parties, maybe we should eliminate some of the major primaries--so we don't have this 24/7 money grabbing game.
    If it will cost half a billion dollars to run for election in 2008, what will it be in 2012...a billion, two billion....?
     Where does it stop?

    Thanks for reading:
    Bob Kholos
   
   
   

In Praise of Senator Mary Landrieu and Senator Olympia Snowe-by Bob Kholos

    "Moderation in Defense of Liberty is no Vice."

    Sometimes a change in society can be brought from the top.  It's not always the angry crowds demanding political and social change which moves America forward.
    In their own quiet way,United State Senators Mary Landrieu (D-LA), and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) are trying to claim the old ground of peace and civility which was the hallmark of a slower time within the "club" of 100.
    Prior to Senator  Lyndon B. Johnson,(D-TX) running the US Senate, going to sleep at your desk was considered a positive position by that political body: That was also bad.
    However, the basic idea for the US Senate, is not only to give equal representation for all of the states, but to protect us as a deliberative body--to slow down the active and agitated laws being passed by the House of Representatives, and calm down the Executive Branch, which may want us to go into war.
    As citizens, we have all witnessed  the increasing rancor among politicians.  We don't expect them to agree, but we do expect them to appear civil.  Should we accept less, when we demand that our own children stop fighting?
    Landrieu and Snowe have created, and are co-chairs of the new Common Ground Coalition.

    I'm sure this comes out of the recent leadership they showed-- when the issue of appointing federal Judges started looking like a street brawl.

    It is important to start finding a common agenda, so that issues and laws can be presented and passed which help all of us, and are not just another issue of political positioning which has no meaning and no heart.

    We have problems which are crippling this country--health care, gang violence, drug addiction,rampant poverty, environmental degradation-to mention just a few.

    There are a lot of tired faces, ridding the buses and subways of America.  Just look around at the afternoon rush hour of maids, hotel workers, and others, who make much of our economy work.

    To spend hours arguing, when the elected class has full health care, retirement, and nice working hours, is a spoiled way to run the country.

    It is somewhat worrisome that while they will be drafting the latest proposal on solving the problem of gaining peace in the Middle East, they can't find it in their own chamber.

    Mary Landrieu and Olympia Snowe are showing the maturity needed to regain our respect in our elected officials.

    They are also lighting the way to a healthy new America in the way we run the country.

    There is a tradition in the State of Oregon where Senator Ron Wyden, a liberal democrat and the son of Holocaust survivors, and Senator Gordon Smith, a conservative republican, whose son passed away in a  tragedy, get together every year to decide on what issues they can agree upon. Life has prepared them for the obvious: Work together on important matters.

    My hope is that other elected leaders follow their lead.

    Thanks for reading:

    Bob Kholos

 

Eliminate Most Expensive Presidential Primaries--by Bob Kholos

    Since the Democratic Convention in 1968, which was a riot disguised as a political event, the party of the Donkey, under the McGovern/Hughes reforms, is supposed to reflect people power, and not one of back room deals and special interests.
    Considering it will take about 500-million dollars to get the democratic nominee to election day in November, 2008--the reforms have become a joke.
    It's almost 40 years later, and for example, the two democratic candidates in the California primary, vying for the right to face Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, used a combine 30-million dollars--out of pocket--to throw mud at each other during the television commercial battle--and eventually still lose to the Austrian immigrant by 15 points on election day.

    In the same State, and during the same election, a Hollywood Producer, Stephen L. Bing, a good liberal democrat, spent 50-million dollars--out of pocket--to finance a losing proposition which would have helped reduce our dependence on foreign oil and create a great alternative energy program.

    On the federal election situation:

    Hillary Clinton, the presumptive front runner for the Democratic nomination, and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, signed book deals worth about 30-million dollars.  By all standards--they are independently wealthy--but not rich enough to personally finance a presidential try.

    During the last presidential campaign, democratic nominee, Sen. John Kerry, had so much money, that his butler traveled with him--during his losing race against President George W. Bush.

    The Watergate reforms and the various US Supreme Court rulings against many of its earliest provisions, such as campaign spending limits, have also created a situation where the wealthiest candidates can spend as much of their own money running for office, but are limited to accepting $2,300 per person, per election cycle.

    This basically means that every special interest lawyer, developer and polluter, captains of industry,(A CEO can contribute, but not his business, under the federal guidelines) and many of the board members of these same institutions, will be glad handing the candidate at the thousands  of dinners and fund raisers, and handing out their business cards to the campaign staff and candidate,on the primary trail.

    Because most average Americans can not afford the $2,300 campaign contributions and personally shake the hand of the presidential candidate, the wealthy special interests will continue to have the inside track.

    Most of this money goes into campaign television commercials.  Once a candidate clears New Hampshire and Iowa, where the people actually get to look the politician in the eye, it is all "Hollywood" after that.

    Therefore, why bother having many open primaries which costs a hundred million dollars, after New Hampshire and Iowa (and now--South Carolina and Nevada)?

    Why not go back to the "back room deal," where the party bosses and democratic elected officials, duke it out privately, as to the best person and most practical candidate to run for President of the United States?

    We can still have a few primaries, but basically do what the old timers did--fight it out on the convention floor in July and August, as to who is best to represent the Democratic Party in the presidential contest.

    This process would eliminate some of the special interest influence because the candidate would not have to raise a half-billion dollars running for office.

    Yes, there would be special interests on behalf of the Representatives in the Senate and House, who would lobby for the candidate that basically represents their state and district, but it would take the pain and suffering out of the insane fund raising across the country.

Note: The Democratic Party has to re-reform the system.  Perhaps we don't go to back room deals, but at least demand, for example, that states that have television stations who offer free time to candidates will have a priority holding primaries, over those states that don't have television stations which allow free air time to candidates for President of the United States.

    We must eliminate these super-duper early primaries in February, so that lower funded and not as well known candidates have a shot at winning the Democratic nomination.

    Thanks for reading:

    Bob Kholos

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hillary Clinton-Half-Billion to Run for President--Nixon's Last Laugh

    The Watergate reforms have finally bitten us in the ass.
    The Los Angeles Times reports that most of the Democrats will turn down the Watergate Reform of public matching funds to run for President of the United States, because the 80-million dollars won't be enough to compete.
    My Democratic Party---My, how far we have come.
    Richard Nixon, when he was playing with the bags of dollars in the oval office during his 1972 contest, couldn't have forecast this lucky break for the ruling class.
    The Times says that Hillary and others are looking at 500-million dollars to run as the "peoples candidate" during this election cycle.
    This reminds me of the true story of what Senator Robert F. Kennedy said around 1968, when I was helping the Papago Indians in Arizona in 1969.  He explained that the Bureau of Indian Affairs was such a bureaucracy, that the department could be dissolved and the Federal Government could give every Native American $10,000-dollars a year, instead.

    Just think--instead  of running for office--thousands of American families could be handed free health insurance.

    --We could retrofit every city hall in America with solar energy and reduce our dependence on Oil.

    --We could buy everyone in the State of Oregon, a new hybrid, energy efficient car.

    --We could create quite a drug rehab center, and pay for the children of the drug addicts to have braces and psychological counseling.

    --We could reduce class size,in some cities, and even hire a few more teachers.

    But, no--instead let's pay for television advertising.  That will help the public discourse.

    Regardless of which candidate wins the presidency in 2008, they will have been so bought-out, that they will make King George look like an organizer for the Black Panthers, in comparison.

    Thanks for reading:

    Bob Kholos

 

A Fundraiser in Brentwood for Tom Vilsack--Oy Vey

    When Governor Tom Vilsack of Iowa, announced for President a few weeks ago, I sent him a few dollars.
    I worked as a press secretary, many years ago for Senator Harold E. Hughes of Iowa, when he was thinking about running for president.  So, I thought I would contribute as a small "d" democrat for this man who was orphaned as a child, and is well liked by democrats.
    I tried to help the campaign and sent them a couple of E-mails, but nothing came back.  This is not a big deal, since I haven't been a big man on campus in politics since I worked for Senator Frank Church and Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley.
    So, I receive an E-mail invitation today, to attend a fund raiser for Vilsack in Brentwood, North of San Vicente, in two days.  This is not enough time for me to get my suit cleaned.
    I noticed that the invitation said, $250 dollars for the reception and $2,100 dollars for the dinner at this private residence.
    I thought: "How rude."   I realize the folks holding this money raiser for a candidate I like, would be pushing me out the maids entrance once the dinner started...just cause I could only afford the 250 bucks.
    Is this the way democrats should act?
    I wonder if there is a "means" test to see actually how much money I do have in the bank.
    Well, I like Governor Richardson as well as Senator Obama for President of the United States also, so maybe I'll save my money and divide it among those two candidates.
    One of the topics I hope Governor Vilsack will talk about is the issue of class in America and how some people are just shoved out the side door of this country because they don't drive the right car, or live North of San Vicente.
    Thanks for reading:
    Bob Kholos

A New Fairness Doctrine--Bad for America--by Bob Kholos

    If I've learned anything in my life, it is that there are more than two sides to any question.
    While terrestrial radio is having a hard enough time, these days, some members of the US Congress want to make it tougher, not only on those who make radio work, but also more difficult for the people who listen.
    I'm a lifelong moderate to liberal democrat, and I understand the more conservative voices on the airwaves are enjoying great success. Good for them!
    Our great democracy is about being able to have a soapbox, without government interference.
    Representative Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) is introducing a new "Fairness Doctrine" bill into the Democratically (Democrat) controlled congress.  This is a grave mistake.

    The "Fairness" rule under the control of the FCC was discarded in 1987.   Someone complains about someone else not being "fair" and that so-called "fact" is sent up the American chain of command to a bureaucrat in Washington, DC, who makes a recommendation to the FCC on whether that broadcaster should be fined.  The result being that everyone on radio becomes less vocal and more safe. Thus, the great American soapbox is lost.

    Let me give you the most extreme example for an illustration of a free speech disaster:

    Independent-Conservative radio host, Michael Savage, has about 8 million loyal listeners nationwide.

    Right now he is ranting and raving about how horrible the Bush administration is screwing up the war in Iraq.  Most of the Democratic Party would agree with him--perhaps for different reasons--but none  the less the majority would say "amen" to his strong opinions on this subject (on everything!)

    Under the so-called "fairness doctrine" he would be forced to share air time with someone who has a different point of view.  He would not only lose the effect of his banter, but would lose the valuable dramatic momentum his audience expects.  Thus, he would lose listeners, who would probably just go to his website for the real deal.

    This is an example of how radio would lose more listeners, and advertisers, as a result of the threat of government interference.

    Many years ago, there was a radio host in Los Angeles(can't remember his name) who would tell callers, "We don't talk about religion or politics."

    It was a nice show for the era, but he wouldn't get listeners to run to the radio to hear the latest.

    The left-wing of my party has made a few mistakes, when it comes to government intervention.

    During the rise of feminism, one of the organizations in the early 1970s, wanted to ban Playboy Magazine from the newsstands.  When it was pointed out to the members of Congress that this is censorship and the start of "book-burning," the idea was dropped quickly.

    Let's get the government out of our personal listening habits, and let radio be radio, without "Burning the transmitters" and destroying a very vibrant form of free speech.

    Thanks for reading:

    Bob Kholos

 

The B&B Los Angeles Times--Could Boyarsky and Baquet be Far Behind?

Update:Jan 30, 2007: Dean Baquet is the new Washigton,DC Bureau Chief for the NY Times (Boyarsky is still slaving away in retirement..and blogging for www.LAOBSERVED.COM) 

Wednesday evening, Jan 17, 2007, the day it snowed in Westwood, Los Angeles Times reporter, James Rainey, wrote another story on the possible bid by "Los Angeles Moguls," Eli Broad and Ron Burkle taking a large share of the Tribune Company.

UPDATE: 10 PM.    --Chandlers still in running for Times ownership.

For me, it is a win-win situation.  It will be great to have the Chandler family in control again...although the management of the day to day operation will still be in question. They could also bring back Baquet and Boyarsky.

    If it is successful, the Los Angeles Times could be a local company, once again (or, at least run locally)

    The Chicago Tribune experience for us locals, has been a disaster(I was born in Hollywood during WWII).  The management kept changing and the people who had the guts to challenge the Windy City barons, were put out to pasture.

    Dean Baquet, the last Editor of the LA Times, to be let go, in a national story, stood-up against the Tribune management and was duly kicked out because of his integrity.

    Many years ago, it is rumored that former Editor Bill Boyarsky left the paper in protest over an issue of advertising and news.

    Wouldn't it be poetic justice for B&B(Broad&Burkle) to bring back the integrity of B&B (Baquet & Boyarsky)?

    The Times still has great reporters, but the "feel" of the paper lacks the hard hitting Los Angeles attitude. 

    More reporters are needed, and the local reporters should get bigger play on the first three pages.  I also hope they redesign the 3rd page of the "A" section.

    Regardless, I believe the Los Angeles Times can be re-energized with a larger circulation, when a local, wealthy team take over.

    Thanks for reading:

    Bob Kholos

 

 

   
   

Barack Obama and Mayor Tom Bradley--Can a Black Man Win with a Majority of White Voters?

    Race is important to voters.  It shouldn't be, but it is.
    The late Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley was able to be elected as the first Afro-American Mayor of a majority White voting electorate in 1973. (please see archives of Dec..scroll down, and Oct.) His Great-Grandfather was a slave, Tom picked cotton as a child in Texas.
    After the losing 1969 campaign for Mayor, we learned  some important lessons--Take fear out of the voter for taking a chance on someone who looks different---Make a direct challenge on specific issues and what you would do different--Have the campaign staff reflect a moderate tone.
    One of the things I created for Bradley, that was different in his winning in 1973, was the "Alternative News Conference."  We concentrated on one issue a week in a challenge to the incumbent.  This created a news topic on the Issues not on race.
    Bradley's former Chief of Protocol for 18 years, Bee Lavery, points out the hypocrisy of race identification about Obama, considering his Mother is White and Father is African.  "Why isn't he considered White?" she asked.  She pointed out that in the old South, a person was who had "one drop of blood from a dark skinned person, was considered Black."
    Senator Barack Obama is going to spend an awful lot of time explaining his background.  More than the White candidates.  This is a problem, because much of the air time he receives will be wasted, unless he makes a point of including a strong challenge on the issues and what he would do different as President of the United States.
    He may have to take the unusual position (in order for the electorate to feel "safe")-name some of the people he would have in his cabinet.
    One of the things that Bradley never did....he never, ever, used the "race card."   He never had extreme people around him who would use race as an issue.  It may be an issue to some voters, but it shouldn't be in the dialog, as much as practically possible, in the representations of the candidate or his staff.
    Because of the color of his skin, most democrats voting in the primary, will consider him liberal.  If he gets the nomination in 2008, he will be considered very liberal by the majority of the public and thus have a more difficult time in winning the election.  He must put the  solving of issues high on his campaign agenda, otherwise the subtle and not so subtle issues of race will automatically take over.

    Hopefully, he will have a great organizer like Mayor Tom Bradley's first Chief of Staff-Maury Weiner and a fantastic research team led by transportation guru, Norm Emerson.

    Good luck to Senator Obama.
    Thanks for reading:
    Bob Kholos