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.

"...most people are heavily influenced by propaganda..."

That Walter Lippmann--what a journalist! What a teacher! What a profit. His "heirs" certainly learned that lesson well!

I wonder. Did "Allred and Taylor" by any chance receive a call from someone named Matt Drudge? Just wondering.

All the major metro newspapers are losing readership.

The LATimes was down to a daily average of 972,956 for the six months ending 9/30/01 (source: Audit Bureau Circulation).

The last figures I saw also had the LATimes experiencing the largest percentage loss among the major metros, as well. It was a shocking figure -- something like -6% vs same year-ago period.

Count me among the many who has given up on the LA Times. I read the Times every morning for over 40 years and walked away without even looking back. Over the years I watched objective reporting completely disappear in favor of the leftist-socialist-politically correct bias that is the operating philosophy of what was once a great newspaper.

I too am amazed that the the networks and the big city newspapers like the LA Times are willing to drive their business into the ground rather than give up their leftist bias. You have to wonder who is really in charge at these companies.

Oh -- Payback time, way to go Dick!!

Wonder if he can move fast enough to have an impact on the Fall Elections?

I read it over the internet. It's amazing advocacy journalism/propaganda - "fairness" being the citation of "two sides" when their may be many, and the conservative/moderate/even liberal view point that doesn't fit with P.C. is always denigrated with excessive "but so and so says." It's unreadable, espeically the opinion articles, which are generally insipid "left-right" type pieces.

Internet is the way to go.

My spouse and I don't buy newspapers anymore, and haven't for years. Why pay for trash when you can get real news on the Internet for free?

The legacy press habitually and condescendingly pooh-poohs the Internet as unreliable, but in my nine years on the 'Net, I've found it much more reliable than the print media. In both cases, the reader must beware.

But where the rags lose is technologically: it's much easier to search for topics of interest on the 'Net, and to find corroborating sources. Punching a few keys and clicking with my mouse sure beats thumbing through newspapers and getting cheap ink on my fingers.

Imal

Shermy said [of the LA Times]: "I read it over the internet. "

When you purchase a newspaper, the money you pay provides about half of the revenue for the publisher. The other half comes from advertisers who provide revenue to the publisher which is related to the circulation figures.

By accessing the LA Times on the internet and exposing yourself to their ads, you are providing "hits" which help the newspaper earn revenue. You are only denying them half of the money you could be denying them.

Now go out and do the right thing...

This is something I have never understood about conservatives buying a fishwrap that trashes their belief and values system or watchin left wing news on tv.

This should become our rally point to encourage conservatives to cancel the Slimes and other maggot infested fish wraps.

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?

Where I do disagree with the writer in his claim that these maggot infested fishwraps are not liberal. He claims that it is the difference in culture.

Well, Mr/ Mallon, you and Rush and others can claim that these maggot infested fish wraps are not liberal and biased to the liberal side and it is a cultural thing.

They have that cultural bias because they are liberal. The two go together like Siamese Twins attached at the hips and all vital organs. There is no separation nor difference. The owners, publishers, editors and even pressitutes are liberal and culturally biased against us!

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

"I too am amazed that the the networks and the big city newspapers like the LA Times are willing to drive their business into the ground rather than give up their leftist bias. You have to wonder who is really in charge at these companies."

Ditto! I'm glad they're finally getting their comeuppence! The Craps have pushed too hard with their extreme agendas! Reports from back East are of massive disillusionment with the party....now if they'd just turn Conservative! LOL

I heard on the Larry Elder show today, also on KABC AM 790, that 60,000 people showed up in a valley park to hear Governor Davis, GOP nominee for Governor Simon, LA Mayor Hahn and Alen Keyes speak on the Israel/Palestinian issue on Sunday.

On Monday, the LA Times didn't even mention the event.

The Times is a disgrace to this city. As Larry Elder said, they didn't even cover it as a political event featuring the 2 candidates for governor. The freaking mayor of the city addressed 60,000 people in a park, and the only newspaper in the city didn't cover the story.

It's time to take out the trash. Trash the Times.

I dumped the times a couple of years ago, not long after I found FR. I moved to a new house and cancelled my sub. They call me every couple of months to ask if I would like to get the Times at the same deal they offer you. I politely tell the telemarketer that I don't like their newspaper. 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.

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.

The lesbian former president of the LA chapter of NOW, Tammy Bruce, summed it up as the title of her new book, "The New Thought Police" (IIRC). Even she knows that these "new liberals" are anything but liberal.

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.