Cinema News

An environmental disaster off SoCal’s coast

December 8, 2025 | View in browser

By June Hsu

Good morning. It's Monday, Dec. 8. Here's what you need to know to start your day.

The documentary "Out of Plain Sight" follows Times environmental reporter Rosanna Xia as she exposes dumped barrels of the toxic chemical DDT on the floor of the Pacific.
Paramount was poised to buy Warner Bros. Discovery. What went wrong?
Here are the 15 best books of 2025.
And here's today's e-newspaper.

An environmental danger lies at the bottom of the Pacific. This doc brings it to light

Layers of blue hug the coast of California, a postcard shoreline recognizable at a glance. But Rosanna Xia has seen beneath the picturesque surface.

Xia, an L.A. Times environmental reporter, broke a story in 2020 that as many as half a million barrels of DDT, a toxic chemical banned in the U.S. in 1972, were dumped in the waters off Los Angeles.

Studies have found links between DDT and breast cancer, as well as contamination in animals exposed to the chemical — and the barrels were leaking.

The story led Xia to partner with director and producer Daniel Straub and a small team to create "Out of Plain Sight," a documentary co-directed and co-produced by Xia that follows the reporter as she seeks answers about the DDT barrels that still lie on our ocean floor.

The award-winning film will show at the American Cinematheque's Aero Theater on Tuesday and at the National Academy of Sciences in Washington, D.C., on Thursday.

I attended a screening of "Out of Plain Sight" in Laguna Beach, home to the film's emotional through-line: the Pacific Marine Mammal Center where Dr. Alissa Deming, the center's vice president of Conservation Medicine and Science, has conducted research on a cancer tied to DDT found in sea lions.

This is not a normal news documentary, nor is it a finished narrative that can be tied up nicely with a bow. As one question is answered, another arises. But there is a beauty in the documentary, not simply in the breathtaking cinematography but also in the telling of a story still in progress.

"Out of Plain Sight" focuses on the detriment of the existing DDT in our waters while also looking at what can be done to remedy this problem. I talked with both Straub and Xia, who specializes in coastal and ocean reporting and has long grappled with the range of emotions that come with covering the environment.

"I realized that the thing that keeps me going isn't hope; that's not the emotion that grounds me," she says. "It's courage and a sense of duty."

Xia allowed these emotions to drive her in the documentary's reporting, understanding the weight of the story being told.

"How do I tell the story in a way that gives people the courage to care, the courage to not look away, the courage to continue engaging with an issue that feels so all-encompassing and so overwhelming?" she asks.

Lying on the ocean floor, the DDT barrels — and the harm they cause — can feel distant. But the documentary takes viewers along, allowing them to see the findings and evidence for themselves, and makes the issue visible.

"This is something that we have no choice but to live with," Straub says. "To pretend it's not there doesn't make the problem go away."

"Out of Plain Sight" has been shown in cities across the country, ones that are vastly different from those in California, and yet the documentary's team has seen the film resonate beyond the state's border. Audiences in other cities didn't just see DDT in the Pacific Ocean — they saw mining pollution in rivers, heavy metals in drinking water, sea levels rising.

"When you start thinking about the environment, you start thinking about the issue that's most closely related to you," Straub says. "It becomes sort of a catalyst for all of these other conversations that are happening."

The documentary prompts these conversations, working to unravel the consequences of decades-old decisions. Years ago, this story might not have garnered attention — but now, as Xia says, "it's a story that you can't unsee or unknow afterward."

Today's top stories

The Netflix-Warner Bros. deal

Paramount's $30-per-share bid for Warner Bros. Discovery, backed by tech billionaire Larry Ellison, lost Friday when Netflix swooped in with a competing $82.7-billion deal.
Analysts and multiple auction insiders told The Times several factors complicated the process, including Paramount's low-ball offers and hubris.
The takeover would give Netflix such beloved characters and franchises as Batman, Harry Potter and "Game of Thrones."
Here's more of what we know about the deal that will reshape Hollywood.

Adam Schiff pushes legislation and challenges Trump

Adam Schiff, sworn in one year ago, has remained the unblinking antagonist to Trump that many Californians elected him to be after watching him dog the president from the U.S. House during Trump's first term in the White House.
Analysts said Schiff was an effective messenger for Democrats even if he was unable to pass his bills.
A White House spokesperson said Schiff was too focused on Trump, to the detriment of California voters.

Advocates for online child safety urge California lawmakers to increase protections

As the state is home to many tech giants, Gov. Gavin Newsom has said California is paving the way for legislative restrictions on social media and artificial intelligence.
But although child safety advocates agree progress was made at the state capital this year, they argue there's still a long way to go and plan to fight for more protections when legislators reconvene in January.

This morning's must reads

For your downtime

Going out

Art: The 10 best art shows across SoCal's museums in a year full of captivating moments.
Theater: Bizarre, disturbing, campy — this immersive L.A. show taps into the Arctic wild.

Staying in

Books: Here are the 15 best books of 2025, including stories about serial killers, silence and the enduring grace of the written word.
Recipe: Here's a recipe for Sonora wheat pie dough.
✏️ Get our free daily crossword puzzle, sudoku, word search and arcade games.

Question of the day: What do you wear when you fly?

Almondo Fiori said, "Three piece suits, leather shoes, courtesy and manners."

Email us at essentialcalifornia@latimes.com, and your response might appear in the newsletter this week.

And finally ... the photo of the day

Today's great photo is from Times photographer Christina House at a block party in Pacific Palisades, where residents hoped to preserve the sense of community that was so shaken by the Palisades fire.

Have a great day, from the Essential California team

Jim Rainey, staff reporter
Hugo Martín, assistant editor, Fast Break desk
Kevinisha Walker, multiplatform editor
Andrew J. Campa, weekend writer
June Hsu, editorial fellow
Karim Doumar, head of newsletters

How can we make this newsletter more useful? Send comments to essentialcalifornia@latimes.com.

Thank you for reading Essential California from the Los Angeles Times

Courage lacking to fix state’s deep-rooted budget shortfall

December 8, 2025 | View in browser

By George Skelton

Capitol Journal Columnist

It's almost like slapstick comedy — the budget act that California's Legislature and governor perform every year.

OK, it's not really funny. But it is a joke — all the gymnastics the politicians go through trying to hide their red-ink spending and convince us they've met their legal obligation to produce a balanced state budget.

"Balanced" means having enough money to pay for all the authorized spending. But it's largely guesswork. And the budget often is balanced only on paper. The state pencils in whatever numbers are needed to "balance" the books.

"They always cook the numbers," gubernatorial candidate Antonio Villaraigosa told me last spring.

Villaraigosa, former Los Angeles mayor, knows firsthand about "cooking." He once was in the kitchen as a powerful state Assembly speaker.

"Every finance person does it," he said. "But there's got to be a limit. At the end of the day, you can cook [numbers] so much they're not real."

The nonpartisan Legislative Analyst's Office reminded us of this in a recent report. It warned of a growing state budget deficit for the next fiscal year beginning July 1.

In polite language, the analyst basically said that the current "balanced" budget — as Villaraigosa might put it — isn't "real."

"The budget problem is now larger than anticipated, despite improvements in revenue, and the structural deficits are significant and growing," Legislative Analyst Gabriel Petek wrote.

"Structural deficit" is governmentese for taxes and spending being out of balance.

"The Legislature faces an almost $18 billion budget problem in 2026-27," Petek reported. "This is about $5 billion larger than the budget problem anticipated by the [Newsom] administration."

"Budget problem" is Sacramento lingo for deficit.

Petek predicts even more red ink in the future.

"Starting in 2027-28, we estimate structural deficits to grow to about $35 billion annually, due to spending growth continuing to outstrip revenue growth," the analyst wrote.

But that will be the next governor's headache. It's not uncommon for a departing governor to dump red ink all over his successor.

Keep up with California

Your support helps us deliver the news that matters most. Subscribe to the Los Angeles Times.

Subscribe Now

Right now, Gov. Gavin Newsom is finishing up the last budget proposal of his two terms. He'll send it to the Legislature in early January.

Newsom's deficit projection will be different from the legislative analyst's, says H.D. Palmer, the governor's budget spokesman. That's mainly because Newsom will be using fresher data, the aide adds. The governor's projected deficit size still hasn't been determined, he says.

Translation: It's still being cooked.

So far in Newsom's reign, his budgets have mushroomed by 51% to $325 billion from $215 billion. But that's not extraordinary growth under a California governor, Democrat or Republican.

Why does deficit spending matter? It's akin to never fully paying off the credit card and wasting money on interest rather than retiring principal debt. In fact, it's often just piling on more debt.

It's kicking the can down the road and not ever tossing it in the trash.

The politicians employ various tricks to paper over deficit spending.

The state often borrows from itself — robbing Peter to pay Paul — by shifting money from one kitty to another, usually to the main checking account: the general fund. This often results in the delay or demise of a promised program that was to be funded by the tapped kitty.

Or lawmakers may raid bond money and use it for a purpose disguised as what voters thought they had actually approved.

They've even paid state employees on July 1 rather than June 30 so the spending could be counted in the next fiscal year.

All this gimmickry results in an unstable budget system.

The legislative analyst advised legislators to fix the problem with "achievable spending reductions and/or revenue increases" — cutting programs or raising taxes. Duh!

But the Democratic-dominated Legislature won't do that because whacking certain programs would anger interest groups that support the lawmakers' election campaigns. And raising taxes in this high-tax state is a political no-no for all but the most lefty Democrats.

Former state Controller Betty Yee, a gubernatorial candidate who once was state budget director, has long advocated reforming California's outdated and very volatile tax system. It relies too heavily on rich people's incomes, especially their capital gains fueled by Wall Street. Tax revenue booms in good times and goes bust during recessions.

Yee says if it were politically possible — which it never has been — she'd extend the sales tax to some services used by the wealthy, including country club memberships. She'd also cut back on corporate tax loopholes.

Petek, in his analysis, cautioned that "California's budget is undeniably less prepared for downturns" than previously. He also said the stock market is "overheated" and "unsustainable."

But it seems beyond the lawmakers' ability to creditably balance taxes and spending.

"Legislators inherently think that balancing the budget is the governor's responsibility," says Rick Simpson, a retired longtime legislative consultant to several Democratic Assembly speakers. "And it's way easier to spend than to cut."

"The leadership in both houses also care a lot more about making the [legislative] members happy than fixing the budget."

Simpson also blames term limits. They've caused legislators to focus less on the state's long-term interests and more "on the next office they're going to run for," he says.

Democratic consultant Steve Maviglio, who also has been an advisor to speakers, says: "There's no upside for a politician to tackle nagging budget deficits. It's much easier — and offends fewer allies — to paper it over and dump it in the lap of your successor."

He adds: "No one runs for office wanting to slash and burn, except perhaps a few Republicans. But even they have pet priorities."

So, Sacramento's comedy of errors plays on year after year.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: Newsom, seeking federal funds for L.A. wildfire recovery, is denied meeting with key Trump officials
CA vs. Trump: A Latino mom, daughter debate Trump: "ICE … would've netted Grandma"
The L.A. Times Special: To protect underage farmworkers, California expands oversight of field conditions

Until next week,
George Skelton

—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

Thank you for reading California Politics from the Los Angeles Times

Cinema Latest

Tamil Song Lyrics

An environmental disaster off SoCal’s coast

An environmental danger lies at the bottom of the Pacific. This doc brings it to light