The Ungraceful Decline of the Los Angeles Times

California Political Review ^ | November 8, 2001 | James Bemis

[Cinnamon Girl]

I think if the LA Times sold their sports, entertainment listings, and coupons as a separate package-- the so-called "news" section would languish on the sidewalk. Does anyone besides local radio personalities actually read it?

[RonDog]

Does anyone besides local radio personalities actually read it?

LOL!!! Obviously, NOT!

[okie01]

"His vile leftest ideology was rivaled only by Robert Scheer's amazingly vacant editorials."

Editorials?! I thought Scheer was in the Comics Section...

[RonDog]

I almost wish I could sign up just for the joy of cancelling.

Quick! Call their marketing department!!!
What a GREAT idea for a new telemarketing pitch!

Sign up for your subscription to the L.A. Times TODAY, so that you can DUMP us TOMORROW!

You can't cancel, if you don't subscribe!

[Timesink]

Any comments?

Lose this stuff:

Publishes an arts and entertainment section that regularly evidences an unhealthy obsession with deviant lifestyles, in which readers often think they've picked up "The Guide to Gay and Lesbian Nightlife" by mistake.

The point of such debate pieces is to bring people over to your side of the argument. There are literally millions of people out there who would be willing to seriously consider your main point, that the Times has largely abandoned any pretense of objectivity and turned into a liberal shill, but the moment they see you referring to gays as "deviants," they're going to decide YOU'RE the problem and walk away.

Put another way: About 3/4 of the country believes, or at least suspects, the media is filled with liberal bias, but almost as many people (not always the SAME people, mind you) believe gays should not be publicly demonized, at least not merely for existing. So it simply isn't worth it to even bring the topic of sexuality into an argument about press bias.

[anniegetyourgun]

ROFL!

[ken21]

been reading the times since i moved to la in 1985.

the decline of the times, and the orange county register, owe to the disinclination of the grandchildren to take responsibility and run their families' businesses.

otis chandler was more interested in surfing than in the family paper. nicholas coleridge in paper tigers, a book on the major newspapers in the u.s., tells a funny story about chandler:

otis was chairing an l.a. times corporate meeting, in of all places, oxnard, ca, when a secretary delivered a note to him. picking it up and reading it, chandler dismissed the board meeting and left on the run. the officers wondered what was so damn important, so one of them retrieved the note from the trash. the note said: " surf's up"!

the same thing happened with the oc register. it was a good paper until about 1991, when the younger generation decided that they wanted nothing of the work in managing the family business--freedom newspapers, libertarian in politics. freedom newspapers owns the colorado springs gazette telegraph, also once a great libertarian paper. freedom newspapers was turned over to a hired ceo who has installed multiculturalism and kicked out libertarian writers, except for sunday editorials.

the l.a. times in my opinion really went down hill when tom johnson left for cnn, about 1989. until then, the times was interesting. after johnson left the editorial content seemed to be more and more dominated by socialists, for example, editors such as robert scheer and his wife, former maoists in the 1970s.

the first half of the 1990s were the worst in radical feminism--constant deriding of white males, christianity, and multiculturalism.

multiculturalism as practiced even currently by the l.a. times focuses on minorities, gays and lesbians, and jews--they are usually the white people depicted in feature articles. to understand the l.a. times of the early-to-mid-1990s you need to read robert horowitz' chapter titled "the religious roots of radicalism" in his book the politics of bad faith.

i liked the article in about 1995 concerning jewish women in which they admitted that they felt superior to other women. even the obituaries are dominated by jews; while only 2% of the population, they seem to be dying off at the rate of 70-80% of the population today!

of course the times focuses heavily on hollywood because that is one of the cities' major industries. but you'd think it was the only industry in los angeles, which is not the case. the l.a.t. business section is the poorest section of the paper, which indicates the socialist orientation .

yes, i read with interest the olson stories. they were pathetic--they indicate that the editors are indeed 1970s hippie radicals. and they openly wished for olson's release.

the los angeles times has no idea of "objectivity". many examples come to mind, but the hit piece several years ago on daryl issa stands out. issa since then has successfully run for the u.s. congress. but then he was going to challenge barbara boxer for the u.s. senate. out of the blue comes this hit piece in the l.a. times saying that issa had been involved in murdering his former business partners in indiana. if this were true, why isn't he in jail? as it turns out there was no truth to the charge. issa is a member of the u.s. congress today.

the decline of the media in the states owes also to the offering of college degrees in journalism in the 1960s. during the 1980s i worked at a university and had access to sat's and gre's; the journalists' scores were the lowest--down there with the education majors.

before the rise of college degrees in journalism, journalists were history or english majors, and thus they had either a knowledge of history of the english language. even then before the 1960s many journalists were not even college educated. these journalists were often driven by a desire to expose corruption in government or business; they excelled at investigatory journalism. today, the media does little investigation. why? because corporations bought out the media; no one who wants to keep a job will dare to really investigate either business or the government.

[Sabertooth]

"So it simply isn't worth it to even bring the topic of sexuality into an argument about press bias."

I'm not sure you understand the L.A. Times. It's promotion of homosexuality is so brazen it's impossible to ignore. It's part and parcel of their bias. You actually can't leave the paper around children.

I'd love to go back to that brief period, between about 1975 and 1985, when a person's homosexuality was none of my business. Then there would be no reason to talk about it.

But that's no longer the homosexuals' agenda.

If they continue to rub people's faces in a lifestyle that most find to be unnatural and immoral, but would otherwise look the other way from, there is bound to be a backlash.

[PatiPie]

The LA Times is good for lining your bird cage.

[Fiddlstix]

Thanks for the Ping

[Snow Bunny]

I love this. Thanks so much for the ping and the great news about the LA Times . heh heh.Love it.

[Cacique]

Between the NY Times and the LA Times we will never run out of toilet paper. Maybe they ought to publish it on softer paper so it can do it's assigned function well.

[HENRYADAMS]

The Times has become PC. Secondly, the Third World market to which is attempting to cater cannot even read and they are not interesting. Hence the decline in readership.

[white rose]

Our other local paper, the Daily News, is, in its own way, possibly even more pathetic. It was not a bad paper in the '80s, but at some point during the Age of Bubba, it collapsed faster than a Taliban soldier who's decided he's not quite ready to go to Allah.

It's still ostensibly more conservative than the LAT, but it has degenerated into nothing more than articles regurgitated from the AP and the NYT. Oh, and they put movie reviews on as their front page stories. A couple of months back they did a story which covered the entire front and back pages of their news section on...a Marilyn Monroe impersonator.

Funny how all these newspapers around the country seemed to go south at about the same time, and in roughly the same way. It would make an interesting dissertation for someone to investigate in detail exactly how and why this happened.

[GVnana]

I don't know exactly when the Times began its decay, but I suspect it was when the paper made the conscious decision to try to be the west coast equivalent of the New York Times.

I lived in LA when the Times took a huge editorial shift and began a campaign to become "diversified"--right after Rodney King and the LA riots. Instead of informing the citizenry, it sought social "understanding" and acceptance by the city's worst elements. The Times created it's own decline by contributing to people who don't contribute.

[Victoria Delsoul]

Ha! I have no compassion for socialist rags like the LA Times. I would say, wonderful!

[TwoStep]

**Ping**

[Timesink]

I'm not sure you understand the L.A. Times. It's promotion of homosexuality is so brazen it's impossible to ignore. It's part and parcel of their bias. You actually can't leave the paper around children.

Well, I have to admit, being an East Coaster, that I can count the number of times I've ever held an actual paper edition of the LA Times on both hands.

[Aunt Polgara]

I think the Times actually must have WANTED to kill its subscriber base.

After all, they solicit donations from their readers to help poor kids go to camp. Then they told the kids that they couldn't use their campership money to go to Boy Scout camp. The Times certainly wouldn't want perverts to be denied their rights to molest kids at camp, now would they???? I know personally several people who dropped their subscriptions over that one issue.

The Times must have gotten at least part of the message because they did restore some money to the BSA for last summer, but then told the scouts it would be the last time.

[Deb]

Robert Hilburn alone should be enough to relegate the Times to the trash heap of failed newspapers.