Agitation At LA Times...

Newspapers, once the ‘key to civic literacy´ are losing subscribers hand and foot. Recently, a well-educated friend said to me when I asked why she canceled her subscription to the LA Times: "I just don´t think very much of what's covered is worth bringing up in conversations with my friends." Last week, LA talk radio AM-790´s "Allred and Taylor" spent the entire three hours of their popular call-in show discussing why people are canceling their subscriptions to the Times. Knowing this is THE Gloria Allred, I decided to give it a rest and listen in. It was fascinating to hear the callers, almost unanimously, describe their frustration, anger, and bitterness with a newspaper that has become so leftist and so lacking in common sense that former subscribers really had no choice but to repudiate a once enjoyable experience: reading the paper before going to work.

The callers were emphatically grateful for the forum the hosts provided, many stating: "finally, someone sees what I see." What made the program such a delight was this simple fact: the frustrated callers were liberals, and for the most part, Democrats. Is it obvious to anyone else why major metropolitan newspapers are dying a slow death, with some just creeping along due to consolidation?

In symbolic context back in 1998, John Cruickshank, editor-in-chief of The Vancouver Sun, while speaking to a third-year political communication class addressed students regarding their study of "plummeting [Sun] newspaper circulation and advertising revenues." Cruickshank drew the distinction between the real and ideal world and refuted the students´ research: "the authors would like to see The Sun become an ideal public news utility, which accurately reflects every group in the diverse world around us. In fact, we're trying to simply survive by appealing to a community of readers who choose us and actually buy the newspaper."

Appealing to a specific community of readers, not to the entire population? Sounds like a lot of readers, perhaps the majority, are being excluded. Incident isolated to a Canadian newspaper? The evidence suggests not. This prognosis lies at the heart of the mainstream print media free fall, and is the primary reason for a largely unreported phenomenon. People will spend money on a newspaper that equates with their belief system. When the product so radically departs from their own personal worldview, they´ll cancel without qualms. Money is too valuable these days, so why spend it on an instrument that will not only leave you feeling angry, but empty? And, why would newspapers like the Times continue as is, seemingly indifferent to the emerging growth of countless intelligent alternatives?

To understand your world, you have to have a certain level of knowledge — and that knowledge is not automatic. It doesn't fall into your head. One of the activities most clearly correlated with that level of knowledge is reading newspapers. Societies where newspapers are read more are societies where people vote more, and are more participatory in decisions that affect their lives. It's essential to the life of an informed person. Only societies with high rates of civic literacy can avoid greater inequality between economic winners and losers — losers not so much due to economic deprivation, but to their inability to take enlightened action to make their society better for themselves and others. What is at question now is the content of that civic literacy.

What are the three common practices of an "open-minded" "progressive" big city rag like the Times?:

1.Issue manipulation: Positive coverage — radical environmentalism, feminism, abortion, multiculturalism and homosexuality. Negative coverage — prayer and religion, business, guns, shared values and tax cuts.

2.Cultural bias: Some groups are more equal than others, and receive privileged treatment for beliefs and conduct energetically condemned when practiced by unprotected groups outside the exempt class.

3.Overarching guilt: The Times is mushy (borderline tearful), overly apologetic, exercising blanket sympathy over reason, while performing journalistic acts of contrition that encourage liberal activist groups and minority advocates to intimidate guilty white America into opening up their wallets with tribute.

David Aubrey, a 30-year veteran of newspapers, said in "Liberal bias isn´t the problem, cultural bias is,"(9/23/96, American Society of Newspaper Editors) "Conservatives have it wrong when complaining about liberal bias in the media," he said. "Most journalists, especially those in the established media, accept the largely secular, morally flexible assumptions, of East and West Coast cultural elites. Few establishment journalists are regular churchgoers." Aubrey states that bias is essentially prejudicial, keeping power in the hands of those with the proper "credentials and cultural attitudes."

Aubrey believes today´s newspaper publishers are the heirs of one of the most influential journalists of the 20th century, Walter Lippmann. It was Lippmann who said in directing the soul of the newsroom: "The typical citizen is incapable of making wise decisions because most people are heavily influenced by propaganda and advertising. Because the public is incompetent to govern itself, political decisions should be left to experts." The press´ primary role, according to Lippmann, "is to inform the public about important issues, but not engage citizens in an active discussion of political affairs."

Ironically, we may have Uncle Walt to thank for the prevailing print media condescension and disrespect for readership outside their target audience. And isn´t it grand when this attitude is revealed on such a large scale? Be sure that today´s more sophisticated consumer of news and reality is no longer limited to the monopoly and self-impressed attitudes of downward-spiraling newspapers that have subscribed to the "Great and Powerful OZ" formula for a couple years too long.

The Internet alone offers informed, alternative and qualified journalists, equipped with common sense, admiration for a value system, and respect for American history (you know, the kind routinely denied by the left). We don´t lock-step to a program other than disclosure of the truth, and enthusiastic discovery (and public display) of every brain-dead, agenda-driven, mind-controlling newspaper we can identify. And from the sounds of KABC-790 last week, LA Times readers have recognized this, are far more intelligent than they were given credit, and are canceling their subscriptions, in droves.

If you are not familiar with the format, the Times is almost exclusively bedeviled with the Middle East. Three out of every five front page cover stories focuses on this never-ending crisis. Meanwhile, coverage of city issues takes a back seat.

To cap the Times´ "week from hell" came the announcement that former Mayor Richard Riordan plans to start a new newspaper to offer an alternative voice to the Times. Riordan, 71, a multimillionaire who last month lost a bid to become the Republican candidate for governor, said he hopes to publish a broadsheet newspaper beginning this summer focusing on local news and features and columns about the media and the Internet. Celebrate! The monopoly is busted.

Riordan, ever mindful of how the Times covered for favorite son Gray Davis as Davis threw millions into the GOP primary to savage Riordan, is ready and able to take a couple years loss on a new conservative alternative newspaper, knowing full well there is an attentive and frustrated market of readers.

"The L.A. Times doesn't have anyone from L.A. in charge and they treat the city like it was the bad adopted child," Riordan said, adding he has talked with some three dozen people about becoming involved in the project for the yet-to-be-named paper. Riordan said he is working with Matt Welch, founder of LA Examiner, a hugely influential Web site that has operated as the Times watchdog since March 2001.

A fortuitous alleviation just developed though, to temporarily forestall the plummeting circulation problem. The Times can thank the LAPD for arresting Robert Blake on murder charges, providing a transient reprieve and giving thrill-seeking voyeurs a reason to waste a couple quarters. According to Police Chief Parks "The Bonny Lee Bakley case is solved." Well that about wraps it up chief, thanks for solving the case in one sentence. Now if you could just provide the same tidy cleanup for the mess over at the Times, we´ll take a few more pictures and call it a night.

I could be rude like I am with other telemarketers, but I prefer to make sure that each time they call me, they get the same "I don't like the L.A. Times, I think it's a very bad newspaper" answer every time.

Good comments. Its the advertisers that keep the Slimes in business. I cancelled my subsciptiom a few years ago and they offered me 6 months for a buck a month. They know that keeping circulation up will keep the ad revenue flowing.

Doesn't the Chicago tribune company still own the LA Slimes ?

Why would an unabashed liberal like Riordan suddenly decide to put out a conservative newspaper - - and even take a loss doing so? And what part would his Democrat activist wife take in such a venture?
Something doesn't add up here.

"Careful. You could be arrested for cruelty to animals. -:)"

Actually, I am looking out for his best interests.
I used to let him crap on the Herald, but the methane content of that rag is so copious that he would, at times, spontaneously combust. We had a couple of close ones.
I felt that choosing the Globe was the lesser of two evils.

Actually, I just bring home whichever one gets left on the lunch room table. I wouldn't waste 50 cents on either one.

I have been praying to the good Lord that the left wing media and political system and government school propaganda programs would be brought to the knowledge of the American people and they would respond by kicking their liberal butts back to the socialist and communist lands that their forefathers immigrated from. Perhaps America will once again be the free republic it once was before liberal liars and liberal racists and liberal fools infected the country with neo-nazi propaganda. Amen! Could this be the beginning of the end for secular liberalism and intolerant left wing bias?

...but I prefer to make sure that each time they call me, they get the same "I don't like the L.A Times.

I went through exactly the same process and like you I was very polite and informed them that I was a subscriber for many years and that I quit because I was upset with the extreme left bias in their reporting. This exchange went on for many months until I tired of it and finally admitted to the telemarketer that I wouldn't read their paper if it was sent to me for free. That was the last call I got.

I cancelled The Indianapolis Star which I had subscribed to and read every morning since I was a young girl. My grandfather was a pressman there for over 50 years, and my sister worked in their art department at one time. I was even on the Teen Star board when I was in high school.

Why did I cancel? I had become increasingly irritated with their coverage, which since Gannett bought them was going more and more the way of the LA paper. (Remember this was the old Pulliam paper, which was run by relatives of Dan Quayle and Steve Goldsmith.) The last straw for me was the morning after the Supreme Court decision in Bush's favor, in which they said it was 5-4 instead of 7-2, and they even had PICTURE of the justices aligned in that manner. I spoke to the managing editor who made a lame story about how the woman on the desk that night didn't get all the information right away. Since I, as a housewife, was well aware of the decision hours before their deadline, I told him that they were either lying or incompetent. I was so upset I started to cry...because that paper had been part of my entire life.

But I am glad I cancelled it. They lost a loyal subscriber and have lost a lot more of them over the past year.

I recommend that people cancel but make sure you write or speak to someone on the editorial board, not just in the subscription department. It needs to make an impact, and they need to know their actions have consequences.

Regardless just cancel your subscription to the left wing biased and cultural biased fish-wrap. Send half of the monthly savings to elect Simon and the other half to Free Republic for a triple win.

I dropped all of my subscriptions to left leaning magazines and newspapers years ago. However, I still get solicitations to renew. Here is what I do to reward them for their persistence.

They all send self addressed postage paid envelopes. So instead of tossing them I send a note thanking them and explaining that they are too biased for my taste. I used to have a form in my computer to use for this. Now I don’t waste my time with that, I just scribble a note to them explaining my displeasure with their leftward biases. Hopefully this action costs them valuable resources with no return on their investment. I do my part in the fight against the Biased Left Wing Media! I hope others adopt this practice.

Unfortunately there is no place to send the leftist. The best thing to do is to shut down their propaganda machine, the Biased Left Wing Media. I believe that Dan Rather and Peter Jennings have done more harm to American with their biased agendas than any other terrorist organization.

You and I would get along great re what to do about the left wing maggot infested phoney news mags and fishwraps.

I cancelled Slimes, the mag, so long ago, I don't even remember when. Then Newsweak was cancelled during Bush 1's first election year.

I did the samething that you did with the envelopes mailed to me by Newsweak and Slimes. I just loaded up the envelopes with heavy paper trash and returned them with my letter re a good deal marked with a red x through it. Newsweak stopped sending stuff to me when they offered me a free subscription. I sent back on their letter, "I would prefer to beaten by a professional than even look at their filthy maggot infested mag."

During the 92 presidential election I cancelled our subscription to the SF GayRhonicle.

I never listen/watch NBCNNABCCBSSPANMSNBC phoney news. I have even blocked all CNN channels on my dish receiver after I heard that Dish and cable companies deduct a monthly fee if channels are blocked. (I can't verify this)

If every Freeper cancelled their subscriptions to the maggot infested phoney newsmags and fishwraps and sent half of their monthly subscription cost to FreeRepublic, we could start a very healthy trend. Of course many like Miss Marple, you and I are ahead of the game here.

When I cancelled the SF GAYRhonicle I sent a one page letter telling them exactly why I cancelled their left wing anti America fishwrap.

I let my WSJ subscription lapse during the Moniker Licking episode due to the vile opeds written by Al Hunt. I sent a letter to WSJ as long as they paid money for Hunt to write his vile lies, I would never subscribe to the WSJ! I got back some feeble response about fair balance. I told them that Hunt was no different than a rabid pit bull, and I would never spend my money to pay for his rabid attacks.

Also why I cancelled WSJ. Because Hunt was in charge of their NEWS, Dorothy Rabinowitz had to go to the op-ed page and write about Juanita Brodderick. Hunt couldn't be bothered with that story.

I have told them every time they all wanting to give me a subscription cheap that until Hunt is gone I am not sending them a dime.

I did not realize that Hunt was in charge of their news at the WSJ. That explains a lot! What a terrible thing to do by the WSJ.

They put a rabid socialist and anti business person in charge of news. He believes in higher taxes and more government giveaways.

That destroys the credibility of the WSJ for me!

You posted, I agree with you Grampa Dave. The author does miss the mark on that one... the "cultural elitism" he describes is neoliberalism to a tee. They are condescending, elitist, and protective of their beliefs/ideology without regard to fact or measurable achievement. That's the perfect description of the new liberal.

Help me here. I am amazed at conservatives who don't want to recognize what you, others and I see as the total liberal package.

This writer, Rush and the guy who wrote the book Bias. That guy does great on conservative news talk radio until he goes down that alley that it is basically cultural and not liberal bias. He was interviewed by a very good conservative radio talk show host in the SF Bay area. His insight was very revealing, but he refused to admit that the reason for the bias in our media was liberalism. He kept trying to say that the bias in news was a cultural thing instead of a liberal thing. As a result, I decided not to buy his book.

You and apparently I see that there is no difference and their cultural outlook is a core part of being a liberal.

I politely tell the telemarketer that ... "I don't like the L.A. Times, I think it's a very bad newspaper" answer every time.

Good for you for cancelling and telling them why each time they call.
I now tell them the LA Times is too liberal/biased. That is my new explanation for not subscribing, whereas I used to say I already had another paper or give some other lame excuse.
If they keep track of reasons they fail to get many new subscriptions, perhaps they may improve their paper.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.