Columnist T.J. Simers goes to the doghouse

Maureen Gamble of Wichita wrote, "I appreciate when the news media give me the facts and even a little 'color' about an event. I do expect, however, that the writer has taken the time to do some background research on the topic and reports fairly on the events. This leads me to my questions. Why would you assign a writer that clearly knows nothing about dogs in general or dog shows specifically to write 1,000 words about the most prestigious dog event in this country? Assigning a person who apparently doesn't even care about dogs is like asking a principled Vegan to cover a bullfight!"

Gamble is writing about recent pieces by Sports columnist T.J. Simers. Her e-mail continued: "There must have been some reason the writer was sent to cover the event. Did the scheduled reporter become ill and couldn't travel? You couldn't find a stringer in the NYC area that actually might approach the assignment in a professional manner? I mean, what were you thinking?"

There was the Wednesday column that referred to "four ugly critters chosen Monday night to be included in Best in Show." There was the Tuesday column that called one contender "a nasty little grunt known as a Brussels griffon." Finally, no doubt to the relief of many Times-reading dog lovers, Thursday was the last day Simers was at the show, as a video attests.

E-mail complaints about treatment of the dog show have come in by the dozens, spurred in part by suggestions on various websites to write to The Times.

The truth is, the L.A. Times doesn't usually send a staffer to the Westminster Kennel Club Dog Show. That it got staff coverage at all this year is because the Sports columnist chose to take his show on the road and landed in New York City.

In  years past, coverage of the annual event held in New York has consisted of short wire stories. This year, The Times is carrying most of its reports online, including which pooch took honors, who won and some background on that Best in Show dog, at the L.A. Unleashed blog. Those posts are written by Times staffer Lindsay Barnett but are based on wire reports. As Sports Editor Randy Harvey said, "The New York Times is the only publication I know of that covers it seriously," meaning, a staff writer is assigned to cover it as a news story in that paper's Sports section.

The fact that Simers chose to cover the 133rd show has a lot of dog lovers meeting, for the very first time, a columnist whom many readers love to hate.

Behind the odd pairing of the contrarian Sports writer and the beloved dog show is the fact that the columnist periodically travels, with a videographer, to write a column that's even more offbeat than his usual. Last year he traveled to Nebraska; this year he chose to cover Westminster. That means that ultimately, it's a Simers column, not a Westminster news report. As Harvey says, lots of Simers fans know that's his contrarian tone is his act, but apparently many Westminster fans find the tone shocking. (Last year, lots of Nebraskans felt the same way.)

Garnett Persinger of Conneautville, Pa., expressed a sentiment in writing, "I wanted to read about Westminster Dog Show, not his personal rambling about an assignment he did not apparently want." Others called the columns "offensive, insulting, arrogant and downright mean."

Those who read Simers regularly reacted differently. Of the Feb. 11 column, which brought more annoyed notes than the others, Ron Herron of Hermosa Beach wrote: "One of your very best columns. It is the funniest thing you have done in a long time. You might have missed your calling. And I’m a big time dog lover."

As Deputy Sports Editor Mike James puts it: "The point here is that he wasn’t sent to provide coverage of the dog show, which readers sometimes fail to understand. He’s a humor columnist, and that involves poking fun at every aspect of sports. That’s what he did here. Unfortunately, some people don’t appreciate TJ’s humor; that’s always been the case."

What to make of the complaints? Harvey said OK when Simers suggested taking his column on the road to Madison Square Garden: "We took an outsider's view of it, and who is more of an outsider than T.J.?"

Photo: The shot that ran with the Feb. 11 Simers column shows Walker getting washed during the Westminster Kennel Club dog show at Madison Square Garden. Credit: Myung J. Chun / Los Angeles Times

Comments

[AH]

The only offensive things about Simers are his ugly mug and annoying voice. I cannot understand why the LAT wastes money sending a cameraperson along to film him - they should spending that money to hire another wickedly funny columnist. Seriously, Simers and Lopez are the finest columnists the LAT has. Plaschke et al can't hold a candle to them.

Anyway, I still can't understand why he did something as dumb as a dog show, but at least he did it TJ style. I just wish I didn't have to see his face -- it haunts me in my sleep sometimes. Let's face it, newspaper people ended up in the paper because they can write, not because they can act in front of the camera. Simers definitely qualifies as a "should be wearing a paper sack on his head" kind of guy.

Keep up the good work. Hopefully it sold a few ads. Simers is one few reasons I still subscribe to the paper. That, and the fact that he doesn't spend as much times on the stupid ponies as his predecessors on page 2.

[Betsy S. Clagett, BSN, RN]

It is a shame that Joe Q. Public will read your article and think there is any truth in it. Responsible dog breeders, regardless of breed, put their hearts and souls into breeding the very healthiest, sound in temperament, attractive dogs - according to their breed standard - that they possibly can. Many of these breeders care for their dogs better than a lot of people care for their children! I can only hope that your ignorance does not perpetuate further public ignorance - lest the public be left with the only option of obtaining a pet from a back yard breeder, puppy mill, or pet store.

With Disgust,

Betsy S. Clagett, BSN, RN
Tea Time Labradors and Cavaliers
Poulsbo, WA

[Trudy Owens]

Regarding TJ Simmers, editorial, He should be in the Dog House!

I have to admit as a dog fan you brought a smile to my face with your witty comments and gibes. But it was all too clear that you have no dog experience (except with your wife as you state) and no credibility to write an informed article. It would be a stretch to have an 8 year old kid cover the Raiders or announce at the Mariners. Your unintelligible, uninformed article was clearly written without knowledge of the sport. Your unwillingness to keep an open mind, to learn about what prompts everyday people to work hard at what they love, putting hundreds of hours and sacrificing their hard earned money for the love of the breed they represent makes me wonder, “ who in their right mind assigned you to this story”?

Get a grip, before you announce at the big leagues, you better have some idea of how the game is played!

[Lester]

How about just trying to report the news straight without the editorializing? I don't read the paper for the humor--the Onion does just fine. Why does a newspaper with sinking circulation keep trying to alienate readers?

[bruce]

i thought simers' column was great, and i like dogs as much as anyone. i've seen the terribly precious world of dog shows up close, as i used to date a habitue (that would be a breeder/shower, not a dog). it's all politics, popularity, quite a bit of backbiting and one-upmanship. people curious about dog show people should read joseph wambaugh's novel "the black marble".

[wildcat]

Sorry Simers, but neither I nor the dogs have ever heard of you. Bad thing is now that you're loose, and not all that funny, Sam Zell's gonna put a collar on you to stop wasting the Tribune's money!

[Maureen Gamble]

The Reader's Rep left out the rest of my comments in her article. I don't blame Simers for his ignorance of the show world or even his total disrespect for every aspect of it. I hold the editor responsible.

Simers' column was NOT funny - it was insulting to man and beast. He, obviously, does not know the line between satire and smear - he crossed it with total disregard for both truth and taste. His column is a reflection of his skewed attitude toward the world.

The editor, however, should always have the interest of the publication and the public to guide what is given space. It is Randy Harvey that I feel owes readers an apology for lacking the fortitude and good taste to reject a piece that was clearly obnoxious.

[Craig Klugman]

I think The Times knew what it was getting when it assigned Simers to the dog show. I think it was a gutsy decision. And I think people who criticized the coverage ought to get a life. It was wonderful stuff. If readers don't like hyperbole, strong opinions, and sarcasm in their writing, it is their loss.

Craig Klugman
The Journal Gazette
Fort Wayne, IN

[miss_msry]

Well, I watched the Westminster show, but didn't bother with the Super Bowl.

The LATIMES dropped the ball on this one.

[Lisa, San Diego]

I thought it was brilliant. We need a little lightening up right now, folks!

[Heidi Hudson]

I was puzzled by Simers choice of words in what I considered mostly a one sided view of dog shows. Could we please get someone from Vogue next year to write all the Super Bowl editorials? That would be a real hoot!
Note to LA Times: if you want to be taken seriously getting an arrogant sportswriter to write about the nation's most beloved pet - the dog - was not the trick.