[jbemis]

Any comments?

[Chairman Fred]

Bump for CPR, which is what California needs (pun intended).

[eureka!]

"Any comments?"

Sure. The L.A. Clymes really sucks.

Seriously, good article. Hugh Hewitt would like it, hence the flag...

[JennysCool]

Fine writing, about an all-too-sad subject, the decline of the modern newspaper. Thanks for remembering Murray and Smith as well, they indeed were irreplaceable.

[x]

Monopoly newspapers are now more and more alike across the country. It's funny how they always trumpet "diversity," but seem more and more indistinguishable from each other. It's enough to make one long for the quirks of the old publishers and owners

[discostu]

Wow, took you a long time. I knew LAT was no longer even remotely useful when they decided to drop their election section the week before the '96 primaries got to CA. They didn't drop all election coverage, just rolled it into the normal sections. No paper that wishes to be respected on the national front covers presidential elections like a local paper. Ever since that day the question hasn't been "are they sinking?" it's been "when will the last stack fall below the waves?"

[Oldeconomybuyer]

Excellent article, thanks for posting it.

[DoughtyOne]

With all due respect for the writers opinion, I wonder if he'seeing this objectively. My thought has long been that people's views change with age. I wonder if this writer were reading some of the columns he reminisces about, if he would view them as favorably as he remembers them.

Murray was an amazing writer. There's no question about that. But as long as I can remember the Times has been such a leftist rag that I couldn't in good concience purchase it, or support the Times organization in any manner.

Their inclusion of the vitriolic Conrad editorial cartoons alone were reason enough for me to refuse delivery. Conrad used to revel in using Christian icons to slander President Reagan. He was infuriated that Reagan fought communism in South America. His vile leftest ideology was rivaled only by Robert Sheerer's amazingly vacant editorials.

If there was a view opposed to what was best for the United States, the Los Angeles Times presented it, no championed it. Being gracious the front page articles are 25% fact and 75% editorial.

I've called their editorial staff a number of times. They were cordial, but when it came to recognizing their leftist vent, they were completely oblivious to the slant of their content. I say this because I had discussions with them. After presenting my case they would actually agree that they could see how I could view their presentations as leftist in the extreme. Still, the same tripe would be printed day after day.

The LA Times could benefit from a Freeper campaign to wake people up to it's gross content. If we weren't involved in a suit at the present time, I'd push this.

The Times has support illegal immigration in every way that it could. It prints articles listing the plight of the poor immigrant focusing on the illegals. And as the populace in the LA area has morphed to resemple that of Tijuana, the LA Times positioned itself to function under the new non-English speaking populace by purchasing and operating the largest Spanish Newspaper on the coast, La Opinion.

If you are looking for a subversive turncoat publication supportive of marxist ideology and anything counter the US's best interests, look no further than the LA Times. Or as many of us refer to it, Pravda on the Pacific.

[Landru]

This rag, The LATimes, is about to pay the piper for permitting their publication to be everything this author asserts; and much, much worse.
Let the people they're playing to be the one's to pay to save their nearly fried-crisp bacon.

The free market is only now just beginning to deal this outfit their just desserts; & I've a bottle of champaign held in reserve for the soon to come day they'll annouce they are no more.

Although, it being the LATimes?
They won't, no, cannot come right out & say that in such honest, frank terms.
The truth of their disposition will nonetheless be clearly evidenced by their absence; and, quite possibly a measurable, noticably improved air quality in the 'Valley.

Clock's running LATs...tick-tick-tick...

[Zack Nguyen]

This is along the lines of the general trend in mainstream journalism today. A lack of interest or ability to produce hard news, a continuous focus on feature and "human interest" stories, and the constant injection of the liberal agenda into all aspects of reporting.

The mainstream media today is not journalism, it is not reporting, it is not fact-finding and relaying, it is an instrument of advocacy for the leftist viewpoint. College students do not attend journalism school because they have a love for the fact-finding process of true journalism. They want to work in media because they want to "make the world a better place." This fits hand in glove with the leftist ideology which they then spend their lives propogating in both overt and subtle ways, while proudly waving the banner of "objectivity" in the face of anyone who complains.

I consider the mainstream media to be one of the great pillars that holds up secular liberalism in America today.

Our side should use the media when they can be used for our purposes, and oppose them if we must. Above all we should never seek to appease them by moderating our stands, and never expect them to love us. They never will. They will despise us as the enemies of who they are and what they stand for. And they will filter their "objective" news appropriately. That is just the way it is.

[tallhappy]

Here's one of their great insights today:

Many people celebrated small victories Tuesday after they awoke to find the Taliban gone and thousands of Northern Alliance troops and police streaming into the capital. It is too early to know whether Kabul's latest liberators will bring more suffering, but the many residents who saw the Taliban as an occupier had good reason to celebrate.

from an article called Taliban Torturers on the Run

Of course in an ostensibly news article about people celebrating the Times has to include a line that getting rid of the Taliban will make things worse. And, of course, that means the US effort would be to blame.

[tophat9000]

The LA Times?...I wouldn't even let my dog pee on it!

[rstevens]

Yes. Cancel subscriptions and never buy this rag.

[LantzALot]

I don't know exactly when the Times began its decay, but

I can't say for certain, either, but I do remember a morning in the early eighties when I looked at the front page of my Times and saw that of the ten or so articles featured on the front page, seven of them used the word, "victim" or its equivalent in either the headline or the lead paragraph. None of the subjects of those articles were otherwise honorable people, but members of the diverse groups of useful idiots courted by the left.

Now when the telemarketers call to try to get me to subscribe to their "newspaper", I give them the favorite liberal line:

"I know newspapers.
I used to work for a newspaper.
And believe me, The Los Angeles Times is no newspaper.

[RonDog]

The Times was rocked recently by news that its average weekday circulation for the six months ended September 30 dropped to 972, 957 - a decline of nearly 5%. This loss was the second highest among the nation's top 20 newspapers.

Isn't our system of free enterprise WONDERFUL?
How much MORE pain must they endure before they CHANGE, to reflect the demands of the marketplace?

Is there any chance that business will get SO bad that the L.A. Times will someday actually start printing JOURNALISM?

If you listen to Hugh Hewitt, or read his commentaries,
this (active) PING list is for YOU!
Please post your comments, and BUMP!

(If you want OFF - or ON - my (active) "Hugh Hewitt PING list" - please let me know.)

[RonDog]

"It's bad enough (though acceptable) that the Times' editorial page has been intellectually corrupted by left-wing politics, but the selection and writing of its 'news' stories are now also colored by liberal pieties.
Sometimes I imagine the paper is actually being published as a delicious tongue-in-cheek satire on political correctness by some clever college students.
'No way,' I think, 'the editors can't really believe that . . .'

The Times' precipitous drop in circulation (from 1.25 million readers a few years ago to less than 1 million today) began with its abandonment of the tough job of honest journalism..."

Wonderful news. Excellent analysis. This "precipitous drop" could not happen to a more DESERVING "newspaper."

.

(Note to FReepers: There are TWO WAYS to notify Hugh Hewitt listeners, ACTIVE and PASSIVE:

1 - ACTIVE (as I just did with my PREVIOUS reply) - Post a reply To: MANY individual FReepers, so that this reply shows up when any of those members does a Self-Search.
2 - PASSIVE (as eureka! did in post #3 of this thread) - Post a reply To: Hugh Hewitt, which is an official Free Republic bump_list, so that it will show up ONLY when someone clicks the "Hugh Hewitt bump_list" link, http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/involved?group=81)

[Joe Boucher]

I grew up in L.A. and 25 years ago the Times was a good readable newspaper. Since then it has gone down like an anchor. I use to get a Sunday paper to check out the city and how it was going. Now the city sucks and the paper isn't worth using as ass wipe.

[GSWarrior]

Haven't read the Times in years. Is that idiot Robert Hilburn still editing the Calendar section?

[Nogbad]

autoPing

[VOA]

...readers often think they've picked up "The Guide to Gay and Lesbian Nightlife" by mistake.

LOL!
As an Okie who got occupationally-relocated to the UCLA/Westwood/Brentwood
area over five years ago...my humble opinion is that the staff at The Left Angeles Times
goes to bed muttering to themselves "I wish all of LA could be like West Hollywood".
(Kinda' a gay version of "I wish they could all be California girls".)

What has STUNNED me in my time working and living on the Westside of Los Angeles is the
ABSCENCE of "gay" culture.
True, when I arrived here on a Labor Day weekend, I was greeted by with a very kindly
"Hello" by two young ladies walking just south of UCLA, holding hands.
And when a relative came to "The Big City" and we went over to the Beverly Center
there was a male couple blissfully holding hands.

Otherwise...this place seems as straight as Oklahoma...except some folks
probably go through more sexual partners on average.

But the Los Angeles Times...I buy it about once a week for the Fry's Electronics adverts.
If I really want to know what's going on in Los Angeles, I get the free weekley,
"NewTimes LA". MUCH better investigative reporting on local affairs than the Left Angeles Times.

[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?