Peacenik paper fawns over antiwar mom (new editor of LA Times allows opposition view)

LA Times ^ | 8/22/05 | Patrick Frey

[Cableguy]

An occasional column in which the Los Angeles Times invites outside critics to wallop a Southern California newspaper, even when it has a new editor and a new publisher who would no doubt prefer a bri
------------

I CANNOT IMAGINE what it would be like to lose my child the way Cindy Sheehan lost her son, Casey, in Iraq. The bereaved mother, who until Thursday had been camped outside President Bush's ranch in Crawford, Texas, has every right to protest the war, and her demonstration was certainly news.

But in its apparent zeal to portray Sheehan as the Rosa Parks of the antiwar movement, the Los Angeles Times has omitted facts and perspectives that might undercut her message or explain the president's reluctance to meet with her again.

For example, The Times uncritically reported Sheehan's claim that the president had behaved callously in a June 2004 meeting with her and her husband, refusing to look at pictures of Casey or listen to stories about him. The Times claimed without qualification that Sheehan "came away from that meeting dissatisfied and angry."

But the article failed to mention that Sheehan had previously described Bush as sincere and sympathetic in the meeting. According to an interview with her hometown paper, the Vacaville Reporter, Sheehan had said that although she was upset about the war, she decided not to confront the president — who clearly left a favorable impression: "I now know he's sincere about wanting freedom for the Iraqis…. I know he's sorry and feels some pain for our loss. And I know he's a man of faith."

[NathanBookman]

Great commentary. It's good to see the truth is (barely) starting to break through the main stream media.

[DumpsterDiver]

...even when it has a new editor and a new publisher who would no doubt prefer a bri

I know that I always "prefer a bri", but sometimes I just have to settle for a br

Hey, L.A. Times, shape up!

[Uncle Hal]

I am amazed the LA Times would allow this in the paper. This article clearly shows how biased the Times coverage of this story has been. This is true of most of the MSM as well.

[Erasmus]

Maybe they meant "bris."

Or its abbreviated version, "brisket."

[68-69TonkinGulfYachtClub]

Anyone who thinks Hanoi Kerry and Hanoi Jane
aren't behind the anti war crowd
needs to get a clue.

[thoughtomator]

I think it was meant to be "prefer a brie", which would be appropriate for those "cheese-eating surrender monkeys" at the LA Times.

[Plutarch]

There is no dictionary entry for "bri". There is one for "bris,", maybe this is what they "would no doubt prefer":

bris
The rite or ceremony of male circumcision, usually performed on the eighth day of life.

[BIGZ]

The new editor of the times will include insignificant news, pro or con, about Crawford but the important news, the hypocrisy of the 9/11 Commission and the Clinton administration, is blatant in omission.

[NickatNite2003]

I'm thinkin 'Brie'

[DumpsterDiver]

OK, we have a bris where they serve both brie and brisket. My suggestions are:

...even when it has a new editor and a new publisher who would no doubt prefer a brilliant editorial policy of their own.

or maybe

...even when it has a new editor and a new publisher who would no doubt prefer a bris for every male reader who dares to call them biased.

[DAC22]

Ouch, that kid isn't looking to happy!

[Larry Lucido]

Brisket?

Brie?

Briss?

Brillo Pad?

[Larry Lucido]

There are 102 words beginning with bri