Posted on 11/16/2001 1:08:48 PM PST by jbemis
THE UNGRACEFUL DECLINE OF THE LOS ANGELES TIMES
BY JAMES BEMIS
What would you think about a publication that:
· Carried a "news" article arguing that accused LAPD squad car bomber (and mascot of the radical chic crowd) Sara Jane Olson was innocent, five days after Olson pleaded guilty to the crime.
Then, editorialized that the judge should reject Olson's guilty plea and let the case go to trial so we can find out whether the former Symbionese Liberation Army member is "a genuine martyr or a failed murderer."
· Publishes an arts and entertainment section that regularly evidences an unhealthy obsession with deviant lifestyles, in which readers often think they've picked up "The Guide to Gay and Lesbian Nightlife" by mistake.
· Despite the dire need for economic stimulus, took the editorial position that a recession fighting, tax reduction package proposed by President Bush was too favorable to "the rich," parroting the socialist party line. Ignoring common sense and economic history, the journal argued that tax rate cuts "would injure, not heal, the economy."
Would you guess the publication in question was: 1) the west coast edition of The Village Voice, that voice of unredeemed sixties radicalism, 2) the current issue of Rolling Stone, or 3) a counter-cultural rag dedicated to the overthrow of America's traditional values?
Wrong, wrong, and wrong again. (Well, give yourself partial credit if you chose number 3.) It was the Los Angeles Times, covering the Southland for the week ending November 6, 2001.
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.
Growing up in Southern California, I remember the Times as our respected newspaper of record, the Great Gray Lady of western journalism. As a kid, I devoured the sports section, later loving the hardheaded, straight shooting news coverage and Calendar, the cultural section. Columnists Jack Smith and Jim Murray were heroes of mine who could write brilliantly on the most ordinary, mundane topics. To paraphrase Will Rogers, they never met a man they didn't like writing about.
Jack Smith wrote a column every day for about thirty years and was never dull. He made his next-door neighbor seem as interesting as Churchill. Blessed with a dry wit, Smith's love for simple, hard-working people echoed throughout his work. He was the most human of writers, bringing a light touch to even the heaviest of subjects, his own mortality.
For lots of us, Jim Murray was the Times. To call Murray a great sportswriter really misses the point; as many said, he was a great writer who happened to cover sports. No one captured the nobility or foibles of sports personalities as he did. Nearly blind, like Homer, he saw with the penetrating vision of the heart. When Murray died some years ago, he took something irreplaceable with him. He was the Times' last link with its distinguished past.
I don't know exactly when the Times began its decay, but I suspect it was when the paper made the conscious decision to try to be the west coast equivalent of the New York Times. It's done that, of course - with a vengeance. This means, like its Manhattan model, genuflecting before the arts and entertainment crowd and obsessively following the latest liberal craze; last year illegal immigrant rights, this year gay marriage, next year, . . . who knows?
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 for the easy one of courtier to Hollywood. Nary a week goes by without a front-page story about the latest entertainment deal, movie executive cat fight, or flattery piece on a hot star or starlet, pushing real news into the background.
In a recent string of articles about benefit fundraisers for terrorist victims, rock stars like Paul McCartney and Elton John were written about in reverential, almost prayerful tones the way the British used to refer to the King or Catholics to the Pope. The Times now prides itself on out-scooping Variety and TV Guide for insider gossip. You'll search the paper in vain for anything other than validation of Hollywood's most fashionable thinking. This is the Times' new mission: handmaiden to the stars.
Well, the Great Gray Lady has tossed away her honor and is now trying to stuff herself into today's fashions. It's like seeing the dignified widow down the block sell her magnificent wardrobe and begin appearing around the neighborhood wearing baggy T-shirts, saggy pants and a baseball cap on backwards. There's only one thing sillier than teenagers trying to stay hip: it's adults straining to be in step with the latest adolescent fads. The more the Times huffs and puffs to keep up with The Latest Thinking, the more dignity - and readers - it loses.
Sure. The L.A. Clymes really sucks.
Seriously, good article. Hugh Hewitt would like it, hence the flag...
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.
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...
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.
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.
Robert Scheer? (with a "c"?)
Just like "CRAP" with a "C".
Cant fool me, a former publik skule skool student. Krap is spelt with a "K" :-)
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.