Times opposes recall of Los Angeles mayor, September 11, 1938

Los Angeles Times supports Mayor Shaw In a Page 1 editorial and an accompanying news story, The Times says the recall movement consists of 'totally inexperienced reformers, political self-seekers, radicals and racketeers,' adding: 'It is unnecessary to burn the barn down to get rid of a few rats.'

I knew this day was coming and it is still a shock. Apparently, as far as The Times editorial was concerned, there was nothing wrong with having police officials try to kill people with bombs or the mayor's brother selling civic jobs out of City Hall.  I haven't had an opportunity to check the microfilm of other papers, but "Thinking Big," by Robert Gottlieb and Irene Wolt, which takes a critical look at The Times, says it was the only one to oppose the recall. Based on reading The Times, I would quibble with Gottlieb and Wolt's statement that: "Its support of Shaw was weak and attacks on Bowron were kept to a minimum." The Times lavished praise on Shaw's experience and the general efficiency of city government. As far as I can tell, The Times' silence on Bowron was the paper's way of ignoring the issue. On the runover, The Times also endorses Proposition 1, which would limit picketing to one person at each entrance to a business, with a minimum of two at least 25 feet apart.  In sports, Eddie Mayo hits a home run as the Angels beat the Sacramento Solons 11-6 at Wrigley Field. The Cincinnati Reds beat the Cubs 9-1 to tie for second place in the National League ... USC and UCLA are scrimmaging in advance of season openers ... In writing about USC, Braven Dyer says: "I can almost hear you saying--'There he goes again'--The guy's balmy as ever. He must smoke marihuana every time he gets inside the gates at Bovard Field because everybody knows we Coliseum fans never see any of those plays he says are unveiled in practice.' "

Comments

[James Sperber]

The Times was a reliably Republican newspaper until Otis Chandler took the helm in the early 1960s. And prior to World War Two, it could best be described as a reactionary publication. Readers who know the Times today as a progressive-liberal organization that rarely makes partisan endorsements would not recognize the 1930s version.

Notice the description of Sen. Millard Tydings' primary opponent as a "100 percent (Roosevelt) yes man". The New York Times of the 1930s may have been Republican, but they would have described Tydings' opponent as someone "who agrees with Roosevelt's programs more far more consistently than Sen. Tydings..." Sadly, the LA Times of that era featured news laden with editorializing.

I own a commerorative book The Times Of Our Lives from the 1980s which has historic front pages from the LA Times going back 100 years. The pre-1960s editorial slant was evident in the tone of news stories.

[Almost Angeleno]

Wow -- the L.A. Times supporting criminal politicans!?

This will make those who accuse this paper of being "librul" misty eyed with nostalgia.

[jaded]

I doubt that today's LAPD would try to kill anyone with a bomb, so score one point for modernization.

But a mayor's brother selling jobs out of City Hall? That kind of corruption is par for the course today, local, state and federal.