[img]9|left||remove link|no_popup[/img]With sadness, I see by the morning newspaper that Barry Tunick, our favorite correspondent and most persistent critic several years ago, has died at the age of 72.
He was my idea of how the proto-typical Culver City activist should conduct himself — chasing down and confronting City Hall officials with accurate data and tough talk.
We are told that 14 years ago he retired from the classroom, and in his second career he crafted clever crosswords for the Los Angeles Times.
His Reputation
I knew him only as the curmudgeonly watchdog of City Hall, and especially its coffers.
Honoring one of America’s oldest traditions, Mr. Tunick was an inveterate newspaper letter-writer. He had a fling as a columnist, too, I recall. His name appeared in some Culver City newspapers as often as those of their regular reporters.
Commonly, political causes spawn activists, but that was not Mr. Tunick’s raisin d’etere.
He did not have a personally tailored cause. He was an old-fashioned hometown patriot who cared for the whole community.
Never dainty, diplomatic or deflectively indirect, in written exchanges, our disagreements were so prickly that prospects of a rumble seemed possible if we ever were to have a face-to-face meeting.
The Critic in Peak Form
Three years ago last month, in the edition of Sept. 10, 2004, he wrote a letter to the newspaper, headlined “What Is Your Source?” that was unstinting in the Tunick style:
“Your newspaper vaunts its journalistic ethics. Yet last week’s story, ‘It Was a Setup,’ breaks one of the primary ones: Name your sources so that readers may judge their credibility.
“The story’s assertions are to ‘insiders’ (twice), ‘an insider’ (twice), ‘numerous sources,’ ‘multiple sources,’ ‘a tipster,’ ‘a source,’ ‘experts,’ ‘was reportedly instructed,’ ‘no one questions that,’ ‘The Front Page has learned,’ ‘are/was/were said to be’ (one each). Only the story’s subject was quoted directly.
“Anonymous sources are equivalent to hearsay. When they all favor one side, they constitute the worst kind of slanting. Appropriate to a gossip column, they have no place in a self-respecting — or respectable — newspaper.”
Two weeks earlier, in the Aug. 27 edition, Mr. Tunick was characteristically unsparing when he aimed and fired at favorite targets, in a letter headlined “Blind Faith”:
“Old joke: Question: ‘Which is worse, ignorance or apathy?’ Answer: ‘I don’t know, and I don’t care.’
“Our City Council members and Redevelopment Agency officials cheerfully admit that they have no idea of Downtown’s effect on our city’s finances (‘City Collects Zero,’ July 23). And do they care?
“Vice Mayor Albert Vera is willing to wait 34 years before demanding an accounting. Councilman Alan Corlin notes only that ‘developers don’t do developments to lose money.’ (Right. They make out like bandits — often at developees’ expense.) He can’t tell when, if ever, the city will see one red cent.
“Mayor Steve Rose’s ‘sunny view’ is that ‘the sidewalks are a lot more crowded.’ Twelve million dollars, all rentals from tenants and valuable Downtown real estate handed to developers for…crowded sidewalks?
“Unable to provide Pacific Theatre revenue data after 14 months, Community Development Dept. Director Susan Evans predicts that things will somehow change for the better. Nobody can find out how much money our tenant, the theatre, is making, but we have been paying the developer $50,000 a year to collect the rent. The RDA ‘says it is diligently pursuing the elusive details.’
“Really, folks. Who’s in charge here?
“Isn’t the city the theatre’s landlord? Then how can Pacific officials ‘[sit] squarely on the numbers’? Didn’t they sign a contract regarding rent? Don’t we have a copy?
“As Casey Stengel once asked, ‘Can’t anybody here play this game?’ ”
That’s All, Folks
Thank you for keeping us honest, Mr. Tunick.
May you rest in merited peace, friend.
