L.A. Slimes Faces Anger for Schwarzenegger Coverage

Reuters ^ | 10/5/2003 | Reuters Staff

[PhiKapMom]

I think we should tell the LA Times advertising department that we are contacting the major advertisers in the LA Times to tell them we will no longer support their business as long as they advertise in the LA Times. Let the advertising department know that subscribes and non-subscribers alike will not support any major advertizer that advertises in the LA Times!

[I'm ALL Right!]

bump

[SevenofNine]

Hey Texan I cancel my subscription long time ago during Iraqi war coverage

I urge my kin folks start canceling

Give me email addy for LA TIMES i send them VIA email

[PianoMan]

I'm surprised that none of the articles on the LA Times mention talk radio.

Surely it is the radio hosts that have been pushing to hold these guys accountable!

Maybe to recognize them, is to admit their stature.

[DoctorZIn]

Join Us…Your One Thread To All The California Recall News Threads!

Want on our daily or major news ping lists? Freepmail DoctorZin

[The Old Hoosier]

As a fully accredited Arnold hater, I still recognize this coverage as purely dirty pool. Almost makes me hope he wins. But not quite.

[The Old Hoosier]

A big fall in circulation, however, does affect the rates they can charge advertisers.

[Rockitz]

Let's take this a step further. Here's a few ideas for putting these steaming turds out of business.

1. They are filling the mail with postage paid postcards for people to subscribe. They typically come in the mail in these coupon packs. Send in as many as you can with phony subscription requests (real addresses/fake names). Burn them with postage expenses and fake subscriptions.

2. Take the FREE papers and simply recycle them, then cancel when they ask you to subscribe. Give them no cash, but take as much FREE as you can.

3. Tell stores that advertise with them that you are reconsidering you patronage based on their placing ads in the LA Times.

This will drain them of cash and hopefully help put them out of business.

Signed,

a proud non-subscriber for over 15 years

[RonDog]

I'm surprised that none of the articles on the LA Times mention talk radio.

See also:

Arnold vs. the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy
Los Angeles Times ^ | October 5, 2003 | Steve Lopez:
Posted on 10/05/2003 5:51 PM PDT by John Jorsett

To all of you who e-mailed or called to say you're canceling The Times because of my transparent shilling and relentless bias against Arnold and for Gray Davis, there's only one thing I can say.

Guilty.

That's right, you got me.

I roughed up the Gropinator because I'm on the Davis payroll. I work for the Left Angeles Times. I never met a Democrat I didn't like.

Do me a favor, though. Call Gray and tell him. I've been trying to get in to see the governor and I'm striking out.

Why?

I can't figure it out. Either Davis hasn't heard I'm supposedly on his side, or he saw one of the columns in which I laid him out for his spineless pandering.

"You haven't been nice to him," his flack told me.

So how can I be in the tank both for and against Davis?

Let me tell you what's going on here.

Take lead paint, trash politics, five decades of idiot television, and the rise of talk show chimps as modern-day philosopher kings and what happens?
Clear-headed thinking doesn't have a chance, which is why it has gone the way of the dodo...

CLICK HERE for the rest of that thread

[PianoMan]

Thanks for the post. Geeez. What an arrogant ass, thumbing his nose at his readership. Who would want to subscribe to a paper that ran a guy like that?

[Bonaparte]

"A big fall in circulation, however, does affect the rates they can charge advertisers."

Correct. It only affects what the advertisers will be willing to pay. The LAT can ask for anything they want, just as I can.

[Bonaparte]

I've heard of people doing all sorts of things to newspapers they're angry with. It's just shameful how vindictive they can get -- taking all papers out of the rack instead of one (even taking away the rack itself or making it unusable), calling in with endless bogus complaints about delivery of trial subscriptions (demanding a special delivery), leaving nails under the tires of parked distribution trucks or potatoes in the exhaust pipes, getting in long "arguments" with those guys trying to enlist new subscribers in front of supermarkets, giving their reporters bad leads, etc. This sort of thing is reprehensible and deedly saddening. Don't you agree?

[Brian Allen]

<< These people are Arnold voters, not conservatives. >>

While I agree with you pair of jokers about the LA Slimes, it doesn't surprise me that neither of you -- like the California DEMOCrepublicRAT Political Machine's Cruz-Bustemental-Booster, Bill McJeffords -- are aware that while there are a gang of other DEMOCrepublicRATS and their lickspittles, toadies, sychophants, boosters and promoters in the race, there is only one REPUBLICAN in contention.

And, except in the delusional fantasies of a handful of idealogues -- every one of whom provides a definitive example of Joe Stalin's "Useful Idiot" and will sell the lunatic left-wing's "liberal" fringers the ropes with which that gang will hang your children -- not a single "conservative" on any ticket or in any race.

Unless Chico is having a poll Tuesday that I haven't heard about yet?

To elect a dogcatcher.

[leprechaun9]

Is the L.A. Slimes any worse than most of the other newspapers?

How would you rate them?

NY Times
NY Post
Boston Globe
Boston Herald
San Francisco Examiner
St. Louis Post Dispatch
Denver Post
Houston Chronicle
Miami Herald
Atlanta Constitution
Chicago Tribune
Philadelphia Enquirer
Washington Post
Newark Star Ledger

Their primary thrust is to promote a HATE U.S. agenda and promote Socialism!

[Just mythoughts]

While it is good to let the LA SLIMES know of "ANGER" this paper is not where the votes are cast and counted.

Hopefully, there is a plan to keep WATCH at the polling places so that the lying liberal cheats don't steal this election while everyone's attention is diverted.

[onyx]

Jennifer Nelson's column today: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/996019/posts?page=1

[My2Cents]

"Except for the guy. ... Who's the guy with the L.A. Times? Find him and beat him up would you?" Johnson said jokingly, according to the newspaper.

I don't think he was joking.

[My2Cents]

"Except for the guy. ... Who's the guy with the L.A. Times? Find him and beat him up would you?" Johnson said jokingly, according to the newspaper.

"I'm a conservative...You're not! Waa-waa-waa..."

How childish.

[finnman69]

Check this out, I think one of the latest Arnold accusers is a donator to Huffington and I bet if we dug can find Davis links campaigns.

Colette Brooks
http://www.john1701a.com/prius/owners/colette-b_So-What-Drives-You.jpg


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/995994/posts


Arianna Huffington:
* Received a $2,000 campaign contribution from Collette Brooks' ad firm this year.
* Received a $2,325 non-monetary campaign contribution from Collette Brooks for web design.

Colette Brooks - Arianna Huffington friend and donor

* Colette Brooks' firm Brooks Grauman Inc donated $2,000 to Huffington's campaign on August 17, 2003 (Source Arianna Huffington's campaign finance report 1/1/2003 through 8/23/2003, Form 460, Schedule A, page 369).

* On August 23, 2003 Big Imagination made a $2,325 non-monetary contribution to Huffington's campaign for web design. (Source: Arianna Huffington campaign finance report 1/1/2003 through 8/23/2003, Form 460, Schedule C, page 454). ------According to the Los Angeles Times (10/4/03):

* "Brooks said she related the story this year to Jodie Evans, a co-founder of the woman's peace group Code Pink, after Schwarzenegger announced his candidacy in August."

http://www.npicenter.com/index.asp?action=NBViewDoc&DocumentID=3225

http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cache:Yz9mJb4z6_cJ:www.smmirror.com/volume4/issue24/sierra_club_asks.asp+%22Colette+Brooks%22photo&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

[finnman69]

Could this be the same Colette Brooks? Something really stinks. Now we have a direct link between an accuser and a Gray contributor.


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,99172,00.html

After the "Dateline" segment aired, two of the women who claim Schwarzenegger harassed them said they were upset the actor said some of the accounts were fictional.

"That incensed me," said Colette Brooks, who claims Schwarzenegger grabbed her buttocks when she was a 23-year-old TV news intern in the early 1980s. "He's dodging any sort of culpability. He's dodging these allegations. It's highly disconcerting and runs smack of dishonesty."