Just Cancelled My LA Times sub (VANITY)

Vanity ^ | October 6, 2003 | Self

[pogo101]

I'd long subscribed to the LA Times despite it's clear liberal bias, eschewing the more moderate LA Daily News because the Times' sections on sports and entertainment were routinely superior.

The recall coverage made it impossible for me to continue my subscription to the Times. Today we cancelled it and subscribed to the Daily News.

Here is a redacted version of the letter I sent to the Reader Rep at the Times:

Add us to the count of those cancelling our LA Times subscriptions due to the paper's unmistakable and unfair bias in recent days' coverage.

Certainly we knew at the outset that the LA Times was pronouncedly left- and Democrat-leaning: it has not endorsed a single Republican running against a Democrat in a general election in recent memory, in hundreds of endorsements published.

But the endgame coverage of the recall brought out the worst bias I have seen: prominent, largely uncritical reprinting of negative charges against Arnold Schwarzenegger, coupled with fawning puff-pieces on Tom McClintock and -- apparently for the sake of being able to claim even-handedness -- mere token negative coverage of Davis. (Is it really news that Davis is fighting his image as bland? Next you'll be telling me there's unrest in the middle east.)

The paper has its conservative tokens, including its editorial cartoonist, and deserves credit for giving Roy Rivenberg the freedom to skewer all candidates with wit and irreverence. But overall, we no longer look to the Times as a fair window on the world. The tint in that window has become too dark -- too sinister, in the original sense of the word.

Perhaps you should consider renaming the paper to the Los Angeles Democrat. There's nothing wrong with partisan bias in a paper; in centuries past, it was the common approach. What's wrong is a paper claiming NOT to have such a bias, when it, in fact, does.

Your ex-subscriber,

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

[mewzilla]

Good letter. I heard this morning that over 1,000 people have cancelled their subscriptions over this so far.

[pogo101]

Vanity ping

[Support Free Republic]

---

God Bless America! God Bless This Man!
	Keep Our Republic Free Or mail checks to FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794 or you can use PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD AND SAY THANKS TO JIM ROBINSON! It is in the breaking news sidebar!

[pogo101]

I heard this morning that over 1,000 people have cancelled their subscriptions over this so far

Well, that's just what the Times itself said in a story printed Sunday. One reasonably should suppose the actual number is far, far higher, for these reasons:

- the "over 1000" figure was in a story put to bed on Saturday evening. Many more have cancelled since then;

- the Times can and does ONLY include a cancellation in its "count" IF the cancelling subscriber goes to the trouble of explaining the reasons for the cancellation -- and many, probably most, won't explain.

[Mentos]

Hey, I just cancelled too, ten minutes ago. They're of course interested in why people are cancelling. The very pleasant woman asked if it was because of politics/Schwarzenegger; I told her it was the Times' general bias.

Good Times!

[Coop]

Kudos to you both.

[ibbryn]

I cancelled long ago. The great news is that they will continue to call you and mail postage paid reply enevelopes asking you to resubscribe.

So you get to tell them why you don't like them about 3-4 more times.

[null and void]

- the Times can and does ONLY include a cancellation in its "count" IF the cancelling subscriber goes to the trouble of explaining the reasons for the cancellation -- and many, probably most, won't explain.

My dad did. The subscription clerk is probably still trying to pry his eardrums apart...

[prairiebreeze]

Good letter. I the same thing with the Chicago Fibune months ago. It still feels good

Prairie

[Question_Assumptions]

DO NOT let the LA Times claim that it took that months to put the story together. Premier Magazine had a similar story with many of the same allegations over TWO YEARS ago. Also, ask the LA Times why they didn't investigate Juanita Broadrick's allegations against Bill Clinton or run stories about it during the impeachment process (given that many Republican House members cited this story as their reason for voting for impeachment, it was certainly news). Or should be believe that they are still fact checking and verifying Juanita Broadrick's story and that we'll see something published any day now?

[prairiebreeze]

I the same thing

Insert word "did".

Prairie

[Shenandoah]

So, what's the e-mail address for canceling the La Times subscription?

[pogo101]

(re Times cancellation email)

Although cancelling by email may be possible, I don't advise it. Call 1-800-LA TIMES to do it with a human being.

As to providing your reasons, you can do so in at least two ways:
1) when asked, by the phone rep, why you're cancelling; and
2) via email at readers.rep@latimes.com .

[Alberta's Child]

Great post.

Every couple of months I receive calls from telemarketers selling subscriptions to the NY Times. Whenever I receive these calls, I make a point of explaining in a firm but pleasant manner exactly why I will never subscribe to that newspaper.

I was very surprised to have one of them tell me that he hears this comment "all the time."

Things like this are worth remembering every time one of the parent companies of these newspapers misses its revenue targets.

[w_over_w]

Good decision!!

But the endgame coverage of the recall brought out the worst bias I have seen: prominent, largely uncritical reprinting of negative charges against Arnold Schwarzenegger, coupled with fawning puff-pieces on Tom McClintock and -- apparently for the sake of being able to claim even-handedness -- mere token negative coverage of Davis. (Is it really news that Davis is fighting his image as bland? Next you'll be telling me there's unrest in the middle east.)

Trust me, this pales in comparison to their coverage of the Floriduh recount. They even censored George Will's editorial of Clinton's Legacy and had to publish an apology the next day. They are not just biased but religiously bigoted and pro-Palestinian.

We still get mail offers to resubscribe . . . I just put a copy of my subscription order to the Daily News in the postage paid return envelope and send that in.

[bmwcyle]

Why were you still reading it? I have not looked at a Washington Post in many years.

[smiley]

Kudos to you and your family.....each of you are to be commended, indeed, for your high degree of character and integrity despite the LA Times lack thereof....

[pogo101]

Why were you still reading it? I have not looked at a Washington Post in many years.

Inertia, Roy Rivenberg, and the Sports and Calendar sections, I suppose. But the LATimes is even leftier than the Post: at least the Post has had the courage to blast the Dems' filibustering of well-qualified conservative judges (except as to Pickering). The Times, like its New York namesake, routinely has toed the Schumer / Leahy / People For the American Way line.

[lainie]

Should we be surprised that they even admit that much?