It is time for this blog’s second annual review of the performance of the Los Angeles Times, which is known to Patterico readers as the Los Angeles Dog Trainer. The first annual review was posted one year ago, at this link.
Documenting a whole year’s worth of this paper’s distortions, omissions, and misrepresentations is a Herculean undertaking — much like when Hercules cleaned a year’s worth of manure out of a barn in a single day. The parallels are striking indeed.
In fact, because there is too much material here to put in a single blog post, I have decided to divide the review into two parts. Today’s post is Part One, and examines the paper’s coverage of the 2004 presidential election. Part Two will be published tomorrow, and will discuss all remaining issues.
The Los Angeles Times is the paper whose editor, John Carroll, delivered a speech this year in which he said:
All over the country there are offices that look like newsrooms and there are people in those offices that look for all the world just like journalists, but they are not practicing journalism. They regard the audience with a cold cynicism. They are practicing something I call a pseudo-journalism, and they view their audience as something to be manipulated.
Although Carroll was referring to another media outlet, I couldn’t help but wonder whether he was talking about the editors at the L.A. Times.
Without further ado, let’s get to the pseudo-journalism of the L.A. Times in covering the 2004 presidential election: