Okay, now that the glow has worn off, can I point out some problems with Babs’ letter? She says that the SoCal community loves diversity and that Scheer was a pillar of that spirit, or some such.
She then says that the LA Times’ readers enjoy having their horizons expanded and have a “desire to be exposed to views that stretch them beyond their own paradigms.” Then she says “So although the number of contributors to your Op-Ed pages may have increased, in firing Scheer and hiring columnists such as Jonah Goldberg, the gamut of voices has undeniably been diluted.” (Note: as I understand the Op-Ed page changes result in a net gain of left-liberal voices).
Ok. So, am I the only one who thinks this makes very little sense? Babs clearly loved and agreed with Scheer. So how in the world did he stretch her beyond her own paradigms? Scheer actually reinforced Babs’ own worldview (and she’s clearly speaking for the lefty crowd in general). I expose her to views that stretch her beyond her paradigms. Right? I mean you can say my column is crap, but I think everyone can agree she disagrees with it. She then says that the number of voices has been increased the gamut of them has been dilluted. Beyond the very serious possibility Babs doesn’t know what “gamut” or “although” actually mean, isn’t it clear that Babs & Co. think diversity simply means “hearing things I already agree with”?