Patterico's Pontifications


Patterico’s Los Angeles Dog Trainer Year in Review 2004 — Part One: The 2004 Presidential Election

Filed under: Dog Trainer — Patterico @ 10:58 am

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.

John Carroll.jpg

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:


The L.A. Times‘s favoritism towards Democrats was obvious long before John Kerry clinched the Democratic nomination. In January, Times editors hid crucial details about Wesley Clark’s contradictory statements about the Iraq war. In February, a story about an embarrassing photo of John Kerry and Jane Fonda was titled: “Vietnam War-Era Photo Seen as a Bid to Tarnish Kerry.” (What’s more, the story about the photo didn’t even print the photo!)

Kerry and Fonda

Also in February, the L.A. Times claimed that President Bush planned to fill a WMD intelligence commission with “many members with seemingly limited experience in intelligence matters or background working in high-level national security positions.” The paper also claimed that the commission had “no former top military commanders” and “no former senior ambassadors.” This seemed to indicate the Bush administration’s incompetence — or worse. Problem was, the claim turned out to be completely false.

In June, the paper published a poll that showed Kerry leading Bush — but the poll oversampled Democrats, to the tune of 10-12 points.

The pseudo-journalism continued after Kerry secured the nomination.

In some media outlets, it made headlines when a photo-op with some Marines badly backfired on Kerry. The Marines later told reporters that they resented being used by Kerry, and that they supported Bush 100%. Although the Times had a reporter at the Wendy’s restaurant where this incident had occurred, the story of the failed photo-op never made it into the paper. Instead, the L.A. Times article portrayed the Wendy’s visit as a public relations triumph for Kerry. (The paper did report dissent on the Bush campaign trail: one boy holding an anti-Bush sign.)

While Kerry and Edwards were eating at the Wendy’s, gourmet lunches were waiting for them on the campaign bus — fancy meals including shrimp vindallo and grilled diver sea scallops. Also, Teresa Heinz-Kerry pointed to a picture of a bowl of chili and asked “What’s that?” These anecdotes reinforced the image of Kerry and his wife as out-of-touch patricians. But neither story was reported in the L.A. Times — even though they were widely reported in other news outlets. I wrote one of the L.A. Times reporters who worked on the story, to ask him why. I never got a response.


In the summer of 2003, when Joe Wilson said he had “debunked” President Bush’s claims that Iraq had tried to buy enriched uranium from Africa, the L.A. Times ran numerous stories touting Wilson’s claims — including several on the front page. Commentators incessantly bloviated about the “sixteen words” in President Bush’s 2003 State of the Union address, and the notion that President Bush had lied to the American people about Iraq was born.

Joe Wilson.jpg

But in July 2004, when a Senate intelligence committee report made made several stunning findings undermining Wilson’s credibility — guess what? Ol’ Joe Wilson wasn’t news at the L.A. Times anymore.

What did the editors consider more important than evidence that Joe Wilson was a liar? Well, there was that front-page story about counting fish. An article about the Bush daughters’ Vogue magazine photo shoot made it into Section A. There was a front-page story reporting that America had gone to war based on faulty information that understated the threat faced by Americans — but it turned out that the war in question was the war on cholesterol.

Meanwhile, Joe Wilson’s imploding credibility was hidden from L.A. Times readers for days.

When the Times finally ended its news blackout on Joe Wilson’s lies, the editors buried the story on page A6, and didn’t even report the most compelling evidence that Wilson had lied. (Page One space that day was reserved for stories that the editors considered more important — like the one about Harrah’s buying Caesar’s.)

According to Howard Kurtz, the final tally was 48 stories in the L.A. Times touting Joe Wilson’s allegations that President Bush had lied about Iraq — and only two stories covering the Senate report that destroyed Wilson’s credibility. It was pseudo-journalism at its finest.


Like most of the mainstream media, the L.A. Times misreported the findings of the 9/11 Commission’s staff report. According to the Times, the report found “no credible evidence of cooperation between the ousted Iraqi dictator and the global terrorist network,” and characterized the report’s conclusions as at odds with the Bush administration’s position. Committee members said this was not true. For example, Lee Hamilton said: “There are all kinds of ties. There are all kinds of connections.” He also stressed that the Commission agreed with Vice-President Cheney’s view of the relationship between Al Qaeda and Iraq.

The paper turned misreporting into a blatant lie when it reported about the appearances of Commission members on “Meet the Press” and “This Week with George Stephanopoulos.” The paper claimed: “Commission members Sunday repeated that they did not see evidence of collaboration between Al Qaeda and Iraq.” Not according to the transcript. Commissioner Lehman had said on “Meet the Press”:

The Clinton administration portrayed the relationship between al- Qaeda and Saddam’s intelligence services as one of cooperating in weapons development. There’s abundant evidence of that. . . . [I]t confirms the cooperative relationship, which were the words of the Clinton administration, between al-Qaeda and Iraqi intelligence.

The reporter — a former contributor to Mother Jones,, Slate, The American Prospect, and Washington Monthly — apparently figured that nobody knew how to find and read a transcript.


The L.A. Times also demonstrated bias and incompetence in its coverage of the Iraq war.

For one thing, like many mainstream media organizations, the paper focused almost exclusively on the bad news coming out of Iraq — and did little or no reporting on the good news, including the rebuilding effort. The attitude of U.S. troops was: “The media doesn’t get it” — and the L.A. Times was a good example of what the troops were talking about.

For example, one day the L.A. Times ran two stories about Iraq. One was about a disillusioned Shiite cleric who claimed that U.S. forces had worn out their welcome. That story ran as Column One on the front page. A second story described the efforts of Marines to win hearts and minds in Iraq. That story ran in the Calendar section — the same place where the paper runs comic strips and advice columns.

The paper did its best to portray Saddam Hussein as a man who had not been cowed by his captors. When Hussein was first brought before an Iraqi court, the paper said that Hussein “defiantly faced down a young Iraqi judge Thursday,” and an accompanying editorial characterized Hussein’s demeanor as that of an “in-charge dictator.” Meanwhile, the liberal New York Times told quite a different story, describing a nervous and tentative Hussein who had “met his match in the judge.” According to the New York Times, at the end of the hearing, Hussein even told a guard: “Take it easy, I’m an old man.” L.A. Times readers were never told these facts, which put the lie to the paper’s portrayal of the captive Hussein as an “in-charge dictator.”

The transfer of sovereignty was a positive step that encouraged Iraqis and Americans alike. But the L.A. Times distorted the facts about the transition, and told falsehoods that made the transition seem far less positive than it actually was.

Just after the transition, a Los Angeles Times story characterized Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi as “little-known to most Iraqis,” and insisted: “Many Iraqis have questioned the interim government’s legitimacy.” The story didn’t mention a contemporaneous poll showing that 73 percent of Iraqis polled approved of Allawi to lead the new government. According to the poll, the new leadership enjoyed high name recognition: more than 70 percent of Iraqis polled had heard or read a significant amount about the new leaders. But Los Angeles Times readers were never informed of these facts — and indeed, were falsely told the exact opposite.

Paul Bremer.jpg

A few days later, a front-page news analysis about the handover told another flat-out falsehood:

L. Paul Bremer III, the civilian administrator for Iraq, left without even giving a final speech to the country — almost as if he were afraid to look in the eye the people he had ruled for more than a year.

An accompanying picture of Bremer bore a caption that repeated this falsehood:

HASTY DEPARTURE: Paul Bremer III, the U.S. civilian administrator, left Iraq without a parting speech.

The Times‘s assertion that Bremer had left Iraq without giving a farewell speech was utterly false. Four days earlier, I had discussed Bremer’s farewell speech on my blog, noting that Iraqi bloggers had described Bremer’s speech as very moving. But the L.A. Times not only falsely reported that Bremer had given no farewell speech, it also took a cheap shot at Bremer in the process, suggesting that he was a coward for not giving a speech.

I wrote the L.A. Times to complain. Over the next several days, the paper assiduously corrected mistakes in its Food section, but took five days to correct its error about Bremer’s speech. When editors finally did issue a correction, they had a ready excuse for the error: Bremer’s speech “was not publicized to the Western news media.”


The editors professed to have absolutely no idea why George W. Bush might not want to meet with the NAACP. It was as if they had never heard that the NAACP ran nasty attack ads on Bush in the 2000 campaign, and vowed to unseat Bush in the 2004 election.


After Al Qaeda succeeded in intimidating the Spanish people into electing Socialist Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, the L.A. Times ran a puff piece comparing Zapatero favorably with outgoing conservative prime minister Jose Maria Aznar — who had supported President Bush. Zapatero was described as “a listener who cuts a humble figure,” as opposed to “the confrontational Aznar.” According to the Times, Zapatero’s watchwords were “listen” and “dialogue,” and the paper gushed that Zapatero “cast himself as a calm leader, capable of building consensus, touched by humility.” Only on the back pages did the paper tell readers that this model of humility and consensus-building had called President Bush a “liar” and far worse. You can see why this language favorably impressed L.A. Times editors — but it certainly didn’t square with the “non-confrontational” image of Zapatero that the paper struggled to present on its front page.


The height of the L.A. Times‘s pseudo-journalism was its “coverage” of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. No matter how you feel about the Swift Vets, it’s undeniable that the paper’s coverage of this organization was straight from the Kerry playbook. First, Times editors ignored the Swift Vets as long as possible. When that didn’t work, the editors smeared the Vets with distortions, omissions, and outright falsehoods.

Unfit for Command.jpg

In May, the Swift Vet organization released a letter, signed by the majority of officers who served with Kerry in Coastal Division 11, which said to Kerry: “Your conduct is such as to raise substantive concerns as to your honesty and your ability to serve, as you currently seek, as Commander-in-Chief of the military services.”

Such a serious accusation about a presidential contender should have made a splash — especially when the candidate had based his campaign on his military service. Not at the Los Angeles Times. The Times buried its story about the letter on Pages A20 and A21 — and never even alluded to the letter’s central accusation: that John Kerry was dishonest and unfit to serve as President. At the same time, the paper gave front-page, sympathetic coverage to a letter critical of Bush, signed by 26 former diplomats, mostly partisan Democrats.

It soon became apparent why the paper was ignoring the Swift Vets story. Even though John Kerry had made his Vietnam service the centerpiece of his campaign, the L.A. Times editors told its readers that Kerry’s military record was not “fair game.” So it was no surprise that, when the Swift Vets’ first advertisement came out, Times analyst Ron Brownstein declared it to be the political equivalent of a “snuff film.” The paper also found space to point out that the ad had been funded by a wealthy Republican activist, and denounced by John McCain.

One of the Swift Vets’ claims found early traction in the blogosphere. John Kerry had often repeated that he had spent “Christmas in Cambodia” listening to President Nixon denying that the U.S. had troops inside the Cambodian border. Kerry described this event as a turning point in his view of the Vietnam War. The only problem was that the story was a fabrication. I mentioned the controversy on my blog on August 8, and I was at least a couple of days behind others. The mainstream media did its best to ignore this controversy, and the L.A. Times was no exception.

The L.A. Times didn’t even mention the “Christmas in Cambodia” controversy until August 17, in what purported to be an in-depth investigative piece on the Vets and their claims — but was in reality a hit piece. The article was an exercise in slanted rhetoric. It told readers at the outset that the Swift Vets’ allegations were staples of conservative talk shows and the internet, made in an ad funded by Republicans, and leveled by people who weren’t even percipient witnesses, and couldn’t keep their stories straight.

But the article didn’t stop there. It falsely suggested that Kerry had released all of his military records. It also claimed: “None of the critics quoted in the ad actually served on the boats with Kerry.” This was wildly deceptive, because they had served on boats right alongside Kerry.

By contrast, those who supported John Kerry were considered by Times editors to have served “with” Kerry — even if they had only served on a nearby boat. When William Rood, who commanded a boat alongside Kerry, wrote an article supportive of Kerry, the L.A. Times put it on Page One under the headline Officer Recalls Boat Mission With Kerry. Not “Alongside” or “Near” or “Next to” — but “With.”

On August 20, three days after the August 17 hit piece, the L.A. Times printed another blatant falsehood about the Vets, in a story titled “Kerry Starts Firing Back at Critics of War Record.” The story contained this howler:

None of the men in the Swift boat group behind the anti-Kerry ad, including [Larry] Thurlow, served on Kerry’s patrol boat during the war.

Anyone even slightly familiar with the Swift Vets should have known this was not true. Steven Gardner was a member of the group, and served on a patrol boat with Kerry longer than any of the men supporting him. This mistake was inexcusable.

Steven Gardner.jpg

I wrote the Times‘s Readers’ Representative that same day (August 20) to demand a correction. Six days later, after having heard nothing in response, I wrote the paper’s managing editor. Also, Instapundit linked to my post discussing the long delay without a correction (or even a response). Lo and behold, a correction ran the next day.

Throughout the campaign, the L.A. Times pounded home the theme that the Swift Vets lacked documentary proof of their claims. But if Kerry supporters lacked documentary proof as to any of their claims — like the “Christmas in Cambodia” story, for example — that fact was not considered important. Kerry’s word was good enough.

How obvious was this double standard? This obvious: on the very same segment of Fox News Sunday, a Kerry supporter and a Swift Boat Vet both admitted that they lacked documentary proof to support their claims. But the L.A. Times mentioned only the admission by the Swift Boat Vet.

Predictably, the paper ended up editorializing against the Vets, flatly calling them liars in the process. The editorial was titled: “These Charges Are False …” But the editors never bothered to tell readers which charges they were talking about — probably because they didn’t have the slightest factual grasp of the actual charges, having concluded them to be smears before ever examining them. Which charges were false? The Vets’ claim that Kerry’s “Christmas in Cambodia” story was fiction? Their claim that Kerry used medals obtained for minor wounds to shave about 8 months off the expected length of his tour of duty? Readers were never told. Instead, they were subjected to a diatribe during which the editors mocked war hero Bob Dole. It was truly a shameful episode in the paper’s history.

In September, Times media critic David Shaw beautifully summed up the paper’s attitude towards the Swift Vets, with this jaw-dropping quote:

The officially unaffiliated position of the Swift Boat veterans notwithstanding, the unofficial assistance of those friendly to Bush was both undeniable and just about the only fact that made their efforts newsworthy.

Dozens of Vietnam veterans who served with Kerry — including a majority of the officers who served with him, and his entire chain of command — claimed that Kerry was dishonest and cowardly in his service, and that was not newsworthy??

That’s the mindset of the people deciding what’s news at the Los Angeles Times, folks. There’s really nothing more to say.

And yet, there’s so much more to say . . .


The L.A. Times‘s biased coverage of the Swift Vets is all the more shocking when compared to the paper’s extensive coverage of the “Bush was AWOL” story.

This story received prominent and sympathetic coverage from the Times all year long. On August 15, I did a survey comparing the Times‘s coverage of the Swift Vets’ accusations — such as it was — to the extensive coverage the paper had given to the “Bush was AWOL” story. At that time, the L.A. Times had run seven stories mentioning the “Bush was AWOL” controversy, including two stories on the front page. The stories consistently emphasized the contrast between Bush’s service in the National Guard, and Kerry’s award-winning and allegedly heroic service in Vietnam. Possible partisan motivations behind the “Bush was AWOL” accusations were ignored. It was quite a contrast to the paper’s portrayal of the Swift Vet controversy as partisan slime regarding an irrelevant topic.

Dan Rather.jpg

When CBS’s “60 Minutes” program relied on forged documents to support allegations that Bush had been AWOL, the Los Angeles Times ran another front-page story, trumpeting the existence and content of the documents. But when the Washington Post (taking its cue from the blogosphere) ran a Page A01 story reporting that the documents were probably fake, the L.A. Times buried the news on Page A18. That’s right: when documents damaging to Bush appeared authentic, that was front-page material — but genuine questions about their authenticity were buried in the back of the paper.

Worse still, the L.A. Times portrayed the controversy about the forged documents as a “partisan” issue, and quoted Col. Killian’s daughter as saying that Killian’s family knew nothing about the authenticity of the documents. This was false, as the paper’s editors should have known. The Times didn’t tell its readers that the previous day, Col. Killian’s son and widow had both publicly questioned the documents’ authenticity.

When the Times finally put this story on the front page, no variant of the word “forgery” appeared in the entire piece, and the front page didn’t contain even a hint that the documents might not be authentic. All the information showing the documents were probably fake was carefully buried on the back pages, on Page A18 — the Page of Choice for embarrassing revelations about the forged documents.

While the rest of the media slowly accepted the fact that CBS had relied on forged documents, the L.A. Times followed Dan Rather’s lead, and kept looking for that partisan connection. The results were occasionally comical.

When CBS finally agreed to have an independent panel look into the network’s handling of the forged documents issue, the L.A. Times encouraged conspiracy theorists by telling readers that panelist Dick Thornburgh “has a connection to Karl Rove, a longtime Bush strategist.” The paper darkly noted that Rove had “worked on Thornburgh’s unsuccessful campaign for a Pennsylvania Senate seat in 1991.” Clearly, the fix was in: Thornburgh would trash CBS’s reputation due to his “connection” with Karl Rove. Except that the L.A. Times neglected to tell its readers that, once Thornburgh’s campaign was over, Rove had sued Thornburgh for failing to pay $170,000 in unpaid fees — and won. Thornburgh was, in anything, biased against Rove — but the L.A. Times pretended that the exact opposite was true.

The paper allowed a blatant falsehood about Bush’s military service to be published in a letter to the editor, contrary to its policy. A letter writer wrote that “no one is disputing former Texas Lt. Gov. Ben Barnes’ admission that he pulled strings to get the ‘fortunate son’ of then-Rep. George H.W. Bush (R-Texas) into the Guard.” Not true. Plenty of people disputed that allegation. For example, George H.W. Bush had called such accusations a “total lie” — and he wasn’t alone.

A group called the “Texans for Truth” ran an advertisement featuring a man named Bob Mintz, who claimed that it was “impossible” that Bush was present for his required service. But, as Tom Maguire had pointed out, this claim was severely undercut by the fact Mintz had told CBS News: “I cannot say he was not there . . . Absolutely positively was not there. I cannot say that. I cannot say he didn’t do his duty.”

But the L.A. Times, which had eagerly sought any flimsy rationale to discredit the Swift Vets, never told its readers about Mintz’s contradictory statements — even though I had told the paper about them. The paper justified its continuing pursuit of the “Bush was AWOL” story by citing a “growing chorus” of critics — never mentioning that one of the voices in the chorus, Bob Mintz, had sounded a discordant note.

When the paper’s “Readers’ Representative” finally got around to responding to my complaint, her excuse was pure sophistry. She claimed that the paper simply didn’t have space to publish a whole story about Mintz’s background. But, of course, the paper didn’t need a whole story on Mintz to set the record straight. It could have done so in 20 words: “Mintz admits that he cannot definitively say that Bush was not there or that Bush did not do his duty.” In the thousands upon thousands of words that the paper had printed about the “Bush was AWOL” controversy, Times editors could have found room for those 20 words — that is, if they really wanted their readers to know all the relevant facts.


After John Kerry received no “bounce” from the Democratic convention, the Los Angeles Times played it off as no big deal. Readers were told that voters’ minds were largely made up — that there simply weren’t enough swing voters to generate a bounce for any candidate. When this theory was destroyed by the sizable bounce that George W. Bush received from the Republican convention, the Times pretended that Bush’s bounce was utterly predictable — and that Kerry’s non-bounce had never happened.

The Times also played a role in misrepresenting remarks made by Vice-President Cheney regarding the effect that a Kerry presidency would have on our likelihood of being attacked. The AP had started the ball rolling by Dowdifying Cheney’s quote. Not content with similarly misleading Times readers about the content of Cheney’s quote, a Times editorial bolstered its case by chopping off a spokeswoman’s explanatory remarks as well, making them sound tautological and ridiculous in the process, when they were neither.

One of the single most infuriating things the paper did was to completely misrepresent the content of an op-ed that John Kerry had written in March 2003. President Bush had cited Kerry’s op-ed as strong evidence of Kerry’s weakness on terror issues, quoting Kerry’s statement that Bush “relies unwisely on the threat of military preemption against terrorist organizations.” The Times rose to Kerry’s defense, claiming that Kerry’s op-ed “argued for tougher efforts to find and destroy terrorist organizations.”

This was an utter lie. Kerry made no such argument in the op-ed, as anyone who reads the actual op-ed can easily see.

The paper’s “Readers’ Representative,” Jamie Gold, tried to spin this as a matter of interpretation — though it quite plainly was not. This was not the first or last time that Ms. Gold defended the indefensible at the L.A. Times. If the L.A. Times wrote that Jack Kennedy’s image appears on Mount Rushmore, it wouldn’t surprise me to see Jamie Gold handing complaining readers a photograph of the monument and saying: “See that outcropping of rock under Jefferson’s chin? Okay, that’s Jack Kennedy’s nose . . .”

Mount Rushmore.jpg

At all times, the paper remained ridiculously optimistic about Kerry’s chances. It got so bad, the paper’s editors even declared that Arizona was “in play” for Kerry — saving for the back pages the fact that a recent poll showed Bush leading Kerry in that state by 16 points. (Naturally, when polls showed Kerry leading Bush in California by 15 points, the headline read: “In California, Voters Stay in Kerry’s Corner.” Heads Kerry wins, tails Bush loses.)

The morning after the election, the paper’s editors still had their heads buried deep in the sand. To most of us, it was clear that Bush had won, but the L.A. Times hopefully reported: “It May Hang on Ohio.” Only in your dreams, L.A. Times editors.


Since the early 1970s, the L.A. Times has had a steadfast policy of not endorsing presidential candidates. They don’t want to seem partisan, you see.

So it wasn’t an endorsement when the editors ran a superficial editorial saying that Edwards was “handsome” and Kerry “Lincoln-esque,” while Cheney is “lumpish” and Bush sports a “patented smirk.”

And it wasn’t an endorsement when, one day before the election, the paper editorialized:

If elections were solely a job performance review, President George W. Bush would lose in a landslide. He has been a reckless steward of the nation’s finances and its environment, a divisive figure at home and abroad. It’s fair to say that Bush has devalued the American brand in the global marketplace.

And the editors were just getting warmed up. But they weren’t endorsing anyone. Certainly not!


When you look at everything the Los Angeles Times did to try to elect John Kerry this year, it’s enraging — at first. But really, when you think about it, it’s kind of sad.

Consider this: not long after the election, the paper killed its national edition. This event revealed how truly pathetic the paper’s transparent shilling for Kerry really was. The decision to scrap the national edition was an abject admission that this paper has no real influence outside of California — a state that is completely safe for Democrats. (As its circulation numbers continue to plunge, it’s fair to ask whether the paper’s influence within the state is also waning.) So all this deception and trickery was wasted on a readership that was going to vote for John Kerry anyway. The paper sacrificed any chance at building a reputation for integrity — and didn’t even get the satisfaction of having a meaningful impact on public opinion.

If that’s not pathetic, I don’t know what is.


David Shaw.jpg

L.A. Times media critic David Shaw, in his own year-end roundup of journalistic boo-boos, wrote this:

When I sat down last year to consider journalism’s worst moments of 2003, I could easily have limited my list to transgressions committed by the New York Times in the preceding 12 months.

As you can see, I could have limited my own list to transgressions committed by the L.A. Times in its coverage of the 2004 presidential campaign alone.

But I have much, much more than that. In fact, I’m just getting started.

So stay tuned for Part Two, tomorrow.

P.S. If you are not a regular reader of this site, I hope you’ll bookmark the main page and return often. (And bloggers: please blogroll my blog if you like it. I’ll be happy to reciprocate the link if I like your site — write me and let me know your URL, and I’ll take a look.)

UPDATE: Thanks to Lucianne for the link, and thanks to the other sites that have linked this piece. Please remember to return tomorrow for Part Two.

All of the material that you see collected in this post was published gradually throughout the year, so if you are disgusted by the L.A. Times, I hope you’ll want to become a regular reader.

You can do so by bookmarking the main page. Also, Bloglines subscribers can subscribe by clicking on this button:

Subscribe with Bloglines

UPDATE x2: Welcome to Instapundit readers, and thanks to Prof. Reynolds for the link.

Also, thanks very much to those who hit the PayPal button at the bottom of the page. I appreciate it very much, and I will write you personally to thank you.

UPDATE x3: Thanks to Hugh Hewitt for the link, and welcome to Hugh’s readers.

UPDATE x4: And thanks to Power Line, conduit to Lynne Cheney, for the link. (I figure she reads Instapundit and Hewitt too — but better safe than sorry.)

UPDATE x5: I have replaced the first photo in the post. Upon examining the photo accompanying a story about Carroll’s “pseudo-journalism” speech, I have come to believe that my previous photo may have been a photo of a different (though rather similar-looking) John Carroll — one who was entirely innocent of having made that speech. If it was, then my apologies to that John Carroll for having accused him of making that particular speech — and apologies to readers for any confusion. The current photo is the one that accompanied the story about the speech, and is accurate.

89 Responses to “Patterico’s Los Angeles Dog Trainer Year in Review 2004 — Part One: The 2004 Presidential Election”

  1. As an L-dotter and journalist, let me state that your year-end review of La Times coverage of the presidential election was excellent. La Times always wanted to be better than Ny Times. Well, it was better in the liberal-slant-on-the-news in this race

    don surber (1e4911)

  2. Can’t wait for tomorrow’s blog. I subscribe to the L.A. Times only to keep abreast of what the lefties are thinking and saying. I see these blatant journalistic slams at everything Bush or Bush-related every day. Keep up the good work.

    Jackie (95d9f3)

  3. I’ve been a Times subscriber for my entire adult life, and was one of their delivery agents for two years in the late 1970s. Over the past few years, I have become more and more disappointed with the slanted news coverage. I seldom read the news section anymore. I’d cancel my 25-year subscription in a minute, except for the superior local and sports coverage.

    Jim (d56ccd)

  4. We average Joes don’t have the time or the persistence to analyze tendentious news sources like the LAT. Thank goodness you do.

    PacRim Jim (33eb7b)

  5. Excellent, excellent work.

    Ultraloser (a58aad)

  6. Many thanks for your service to the good people of the Left Coast- for your dilligent and ongoing examination of its largest and most powerful Dead Tree Journal. If TV came of age as the principal means of communcation during the 1960 election, 2004 was clearly the Year Of The Blog. Time and again, early and often, you and other public-spirited bloggers dissected the inaccuracies, outright lies, and blatant political partisanship within the mainstream media. Dan Rather is only the most prominent casualty of this trend. Editors at papers such as the Dog Trainer may be next in 2005- their corporate masters are more committed to the bottom line than maintenance of a politically correct image.

    G.E. (2842ec)

  7. Patterico, this is your Meisterwerk — proof that you are no longer just a competent journeyman weblogger. Congratulations!

    L. Barnes (1b54e8)

  8. The Rot at the Times is systemic … and covers everything.

    The laudatory coverage of “Young Greg Haidl” who OC Register columnist Mickhadeit (sp?) calls a “punk” and quite rightly too is disgusting and not worthy of a neighborhood newsletter.

    The refusal to cover much of anything beyond Kobe Bryant’s press releases, instead of the dissolution of the Lakers in all areas as Jerry Buss turns over the team to Kobe and his handlers.

    The refusal to cover the free fall of “the Parking Lot Attendant” aka the McCourts who own the Dodgers, and are in the process of dumping players so they can sell off Dodger Staduim for condos (and the related financial pressures on the McCourts who are defaulting on large real estate loans).

    The non-coverage of Mayor Hahn’s political shakedown machine in all the departments in LA; the “cooping” practice of LAX’s police dept. who get paid for not working, etc.

    Nearly every story the Times has either missed or suppressed. It’s not even a real newspaper.

    Jim Rockford (e09923)

  9. My folks are loyal Times readers who claim to never read the front page; don’t know about that, but Dad loves the sports and TV section and Mom reads everything else. Anyway, with about eight months to go in the election, whenever I saw the paper I knew it had to have on the front page three things:
    1. A derogatory Bush Article.
    2. A derogatory Arnold Article.
    3. A derogatory Iraq Article.
    This became something of a joke whenever I would come by to visit, and the Times never disappointed.

    BurbankErnie (b84d90)

  10. Sorry for the length here folks, but I’ve been a subscriber to the LAT for the last 24 years and a thorough reader of the entire LAT for 34 of my 42 years. I love a good newspaper and I have fond memories of the LAT. My dad taught me to read the stock quotes in the LAT (I still have the section from the day after the ’87 crash when the prices were mostly blank), my friends and I endlessly debated Robert Hilburn’s music reviews through the late 70s and 80s, and I’ve devoured daily every word of the Sports section (despite the Murray to Ostler to Simers decline) going back to the days when Carol Rosenbloom’s LA Rams wore blue and white. My older brother and I have saved and preserved entire sports and front page sections from the LAT for major sports and world events going back to Vietnam and Watergate.

    I cancelled the LAT today. I can’t take it anymore.

    Look, I understand about editorial practices and content review. I currently review professional articles for publication and was editor-in-chief of a law journal. I’m a liberal republican and only mildly OK with Bush. I understand liberal positions and arguments (having heard them all through a leftist university education and two graduate degrees) and am critical of the Bush administration on a whole host of issues.

    But come on now, the LAT has become a parody.

    They were always anti-Reagan and are absurdly hostile to Governor Schwarzenneger. But it’s gone beyond just a socially liberal slant, a strange sympathy for murderous gang members, and an uber avante garde love of graffiti. THE LIBERAL BIAS HAS NOW RENDERED THE LAT LITERALLY INCAPABLE OF ACCURATELY REPORTING SIMPLE FACTS (as this blog has repeatedly demonstrated). Liberal propaganda has metastasized from selected authors on the editorial pages to infest all of the front pages, the Calendar section, 95% of the entire California (editorial) section, Sports, features, the laughably silly liberal pabulum in the LAT Sunday Magazine, and now anti-Bush screeds even appear in the Food and Sports letters sections.

    The “news” is all anti-Bush spin, important facts and news are completely ignored unless they fit the obvious agenda, the editorials are packed with the most vile anti-Bush slander (and that’s not even counting the lunatic Scheer), and the letters to the editor that are chosen for publication contain real, honest-to-God, behind-the-grassy-knoll, spoon-bending, tin-foil-hat wearing, “Bush is evil” hysteria.

    When I explained these sentiments to the customer service rep who took my cancellation today she groaned and said: “I know. We hear it all the time. Please write the editors and let them know.” What’s the point?

    duraduz (57de1b)

  11. California is a great state, and there needs to be a great newspaper that reports on local and worldwide events.

    Ladainian (91b3b2)

  12. Dude. LAT just got OWNED.

    DeoDuce (04c684)

  13. When I was growing up in Los Angeles, it had two good newspapers.

    That was a long time ago.

    Angelino (d6d8bc)

  14. Great work, Patterico. I hope some wise agent gets you a book deal quickly enough to make it to publication before the inevitable demise of that pathetic paper.

    I remember the LAT as a pleasure but also canceled last year. One of the last straws was film critic Dargis’s maniacal anti-Bush, anti-war rants disguised as reviews.

    Finally, “the LAT has become a parody.” Sad but true. The obituary of o/w unknown trust fund socialists; the fretting over the public’s rejection of West Wing’s lugubrious leftism; the recycled ’60s pablum in the Magazine.

    My favorite on the op-ed pages was the one about how valet parking attendants are victims of capitalism, and we should just park our own darn cars!

    Patricia (133563)

  15. As a 2nd-Gen LA type, I know the horror that is the Times well. But for those who say they keep it for the sports, arts, and other allegedly non-news/politics/bias coverage, look deeper. My favorite example of Timesiana was about 2 years ago when their art columnist covered a showing at the Gene Autry Western Heritage Museum of old west clothing–both the real stuff and the movie stuff, and used the occasion to write a screed on the demonization/paternalization of the noble Native American by the evil white capitalist barbarian. Oy! Superb Blog.

    NoPajamas (58b50b)

  16. Well done, Patterico. Well done.

    Lydia (df8c53)

  17. What an outstanding disemboweling of the LAT! Thank you. As a former 32-yr. resident of Brentwood and Westwood (and a former lefty) I can only agree 100% with your thorough excoriation and the comments here. I particularly agree with duraduz’s. I also know exactly what Angelino is referring to – I, too, greatly miss the Herald-Examiner, which, even for a lefty was a FAR superior paper to the LAT. I’ve never found another paper like it. Other than the NY Post, papers here in NY are as horrendous as the LAT.

    Thanks again – you have truly outdone yourself.

    Peg C. (193fca)

  18. Some would say that upon discovery of the “Times” intentional deceptions the correct recourse would be to stop doing business with them. This is a mistake. Anyone who bought the “Times” assumed they were buying “the news”. Instead they got the opposite! Cancelling your subscription does nothing to compensate those who never received the”news” they had paid for. And, It does nothing to punish this fraud and to protect consumers of news from further abuses from these”providers”. I suggest a class-action suit!

    pajamazon (9210a0)

  19. At this stage in their development, weblogs exist in the space between The Truth and what the mainstream media choose to tell instead. Thanks for surveying the underexplored continent of deception the LAT created for webloggers to roam and report on. You are a latter-day rhetorical Lewis or Clark.

    Keep your compass handy and your powder dry.

    Jonathan (59bb1e)

  20. Very well done. How newspapers still get away with this type of thing is beyond me. If the LA Times would just release a statement saying “Yes, we’re biased” then at least we can respect them for it. Instead, they pretend to be honest.

    MisterPundit (688d5d)

  21. I think you may have written yourself out of another End-of-Year post. I don’t see how the LAT could top last year so your next year’s post will be dramatically anti-climactic.
    But that’s still a beautiful evisceration.

    Veeshir (9c8def)

  22. This guy writes like a 9th-grader:

    “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.”

    Patterico’s whole blog exemplifies the dangers of confirmatory bias. If Patterico ever read left-leaning blogs, he would find plenty of folks pointing out right-wing bias in its pages.

    Speaking of end-of-year roundups, I can’t say that I’m surprised that Patterico never had any follow-up to his Buck “I’m not saying we won’t get our hair mussed” Turgidson prognostication from last December…..

    “Therefore, we will likely [!!] see more bloodshed. When we do, it will take Howard Dean about 10 seconds to come on screen and gloat, pointing out that the capture of Saddam doesn’t mean much.

    Don’t believe him.

    As I said when the statue of Saddam fell, this doesn’t mean everything will be perfect from here on out. Of course it won’t be.”


    m.croche (c18e8a)

  23. Regular readers are familiar with M.Croche, who enjoys trying to poke holes in my posts. As you can see, he isn’t too successful. If this is the best he can do, I’m not too worried about his attacks.

    Here, he falsely implies that, when I said there would be more bloodshed, I was saying that there wouldn’t be much. In fact, I said no such thing, as you can see if you actually read my post.

    I do continue to believe that Saddam’s capture was meaningful for Iraqis who worried he might be coming back — but I also noted at the time that the insurgency didn’t require his direction and would no doubt continue.

    Of course, this all has absolutely nothing to do with the bias of the Los Angeles Times.

    Patterico (14190b)

  24. I took the LA Times for years but cancelled it 6 months ago because of its obvious distortions. I mentioned this to the LAT rep. when I cancelled. No comment from the rep! Even the OCRegister has gradually changed from conservative to whatever. We need you bloggers to find the truth. Thanks so much. Would like to be a regular reader.

    nancy baker (ff5e60)

  25. I would say that no recap could be complete without some mention of the execrable Steve Lopez, but that would require a separate website.

    David (58aef3)

  26. Superb deconstruction of the “Times”. I cancelled the Arizona Republic in August after 30+ years–coudn’t take another election cycle of similar distortions. I restarted my subscription in December to get the sales ads and planned to cancel again in a month, but think I might try a similar “critical” reading. Thanks for the great insights.

    terra (60ce10)

  27. m. croce says you write like a ninth grader. Considering La La Land’s public school successes, that’s really below the belt!

    pajamazon (9210a0)

  28. Gee the Dog Trainer published a pre-rigged poll in June. Wow that was the first time since two days before the recall of their hero, what’s his name? Dull, no Gray. In 55 years of readint the Dog Trainer they have only been rigging their polls on a consistent basis for the last 44.
    OBTW I think it is actually Grey, just kiddin.

    Rod Stanton (7edfd7)

  29. I live in Los Angeles and am a news junkie. I read the blogs left and right, I even read the LA Weekly, but the LA Times no way. I gave it up years ago. When my neighbors went on vacation this summer and I had to pick up their paper I gave it another shot. It is even worse than I remembered, politically correct rubbish, sob sister columnists, race baiting, police bashing,liberal cant. It is a sorry excuse for a major city paper. Larry Elder calls it Pravda. What else can I say.

    irene dunn (0565d9)

  30. About as thorough a fisking as I have ever seen, and I understand you’re just getting warmed up.

    Grumpy Old Man (1ef9b8)

  31. Here’s a post about a new LAT article on “harsh methods” at Guantanamo:

    cb (3016bf)

  32. Yes, yes. Almost all MSM outlets are horribly biased. You know this and I know this and most people who read blogs know this (other worldly lefties excluded). The real issue is: What, if anything, can we do to stop it? How can these liars be held accountable? Are we just going to take it? That cowardly liar Kerry almost made it into the White House because the media wanted him there and would stop at nothing to achieve their goal. These institutions conspired to affect a presidential election. That has to be illegal and if not then it has to become illegal.

    We have 3 years to change the way MSM does business. Make laws to hold them accountable. Force them to become ethical. Can it be done? Where do we start?

    Sourland (fb597a)

  33. Enjoyed reading! We knew the LAT had a left wing bias(sic) M. Kinsley

    C. Bowman (1fd09d)

  34. I don’t know what everyone is grumping about. It’s no secret most the media outlets are commie-sympathetic. Who cares? There are numerous media outlets where you can get information with a Libertarian or conservative bent (though I admit they are outnumbered 1,000 to 1 by the Left wing media). You can even find some with a religious twist, or a environmentalist bent or with a gay agenda. This is the USA, the most diverse nation on earth. We have to get used to the idea of living in a nation that is made up of many different clubs–or in some cases, as the New York and LA Times are concerned, cults. You can find a news source that reaffirms your beliefs. You might even be able to find one that truly does provide unbiased reporting, but the truth be had those types have low profit earnings. (Even the socialist rags are capitalist at heart.) As the old saying goes, there is something in America for everyone to hate.

    Vikram (2821c4)

  35. I don’t know what everyone is grumping about. It’s no secret most the media outlets are commie-sympathetic. Who cares? There are numerous media outlets where you can get information with a Libertarian or conservative bent (though I admit they are outnumbered 1,000 to 1 by the Left wing media). You can even find some with a religious twist, or a environmentalist bent or with a gay agenda. This is the USA, the most diverse nation on earth. We have to get used to the idea of living in a nation that is made up of many different clubs–or in some cases, as the New York and LA Times are concerned, cults. You can find a news source that reaffirms your beliefs. You might even be able to find one that truly does provide unbiased reporting, but the truth be had those types have low profit earnings. (Even the socialist rags are capitalist at heart.) As the old saying goes, there is something in America for everyone to hate.

    Johnna (2821c4)

  36. Seriously, you consider the LAT a liberal paper? I just don’t see it. Tribune isn’t a left-leaning company. And in its struggle to try to be “objective,” the LAT has given GWB a complete free pass. Deep down, you know that. The mainstream media is controlled by a handful of huge, right-wing corporations. Quit your whining. You guys won. Enjoy your dominance of politics and culture. I’ve never seen such sore winners.

    Doctah (38d79b)

  37. Doctah,

    Folks like you will never understand that this is not a battle for political dominance. It’s a battle for truth. I’m not whining. I’m pointing out the facts, and how they don’t square with what’s being reported. Simple.

    Did you even read the post or the links cited therein? There’s so much distortion there, I would think any fair-minded person would be bowled over.

    Patterico (756436)

  38. it’s all distortion, whether the BBC, the LA Times, CNN or Fox. It’s all about shaping reality into a nice package that reaffirms one’s faith. This is nothing new. They’ve been doing this since the days of Kings ruling europe. Even during the Civl War, photojournalists staged photos. One researcher noticed that the same soldier was lying dead in about 10 different scenes. How could this be unless the reporter at the time moved the dead soldier from place to place? Trying to elicit sympathy for one’s views is as common as farting. Journalists are preachers, and we need to teach people how to watch the news and realize what it’s about, instead of wasting enegery trying to get the “preachers” to change their tune.

    Timmy (6af0fd)

  39. Conservatives are whiners? That must make the Left infantile thumb suckers. Or as the old saying goes, the kettle calling the pot black. When conservatives threaten to move to Kanada everytime their candidate looses the way the Left consistently does, then maybe you can label conservatives as whiners. That is for to laugh! Conservatives with cultural dominance??? OMG! This reaffirms that truth is in the eye of the beholder, just like history.

    Uncle Sam (6af0fd)

  40. the old saying `you can put lipstick on a pig and its still a pig’ applies. QUIT FREAKING WHINING!!!! Jesus christ you’re like a cliche. what a bitch. the la times left wing? what are you smoking? what do you wnat them to do? write about all the success in Iraq? ignore the dead americans. get a clue fool. and quit whining.

    tim (8d44d7)

  41. L.A. Times Year in Review
    Patterico reviews 2004’s ups and downs (well…downs) from the Los Angeles Times.

    Legal XXX (28eb22)

  42. Where to focus Blogdom’s Ire?
    Hugh Hewitt suggests that, “If the center of blog hatred in America isn’t CBS, then it has to be in the newsroom of the Minneapolis Star Tribune.” If he were not based in Orange County, I would say this was…

    BoiFromTroy (96766d)

    PATTERICO REVIEWS THE EXCRUTIATING Los Angeles Dog Trainer Year in Review 2004 — Part One: The 2004 Presidential Election” href=”″>LOS ANGELES TIMES so you don’t have to. And it is a gentle mercy for you …

    Side-Lines (c5d5ae)

  44. Dog Trainer Year in Review
    Pseudo-journalist extraordinaire Patterico has Part 1 of the Dog Trainer year in review. As usual, it does not disappoint. Today’s piece focused on the election, tomorrow’s will focus on everything else. Yesterday’s chronicles the few things the …

    damnum absque injuria (2c5473)

  45. Dog Trainer Trained
    Patterico takes the Dog Trainer to task in his year-end review of my city’s major “newspaper” — it’s definitely made of paper, but I use the term loosely. It’s beyond me how he found the energy to sift through the necessary piles of rubbish to find th…

    Michael Williams -- Master of None (821c19)

  46. Year end Remainders
    Count this as the first of many subsequent Wizbang posts featuring 2004 year-in-review collections.Patterico’s Los Angeles Dog Trainer (LA Times) Year in Review 2004 – Part I. Tim Blair’s Quotes of 2004, staring with January. I won’t link them, just…

    Wizbang (d13dcd)

  47. Patterico v. The L.A. Times
    Patterico has completed Part 1 of his survey of the L.A. Times Annus Horribilis. He’s a conservative, who dislikes the Times’ obvious bias because they’re swinging for the other team. I’m a liberal who dislikes…

    Winds of Change.NET (128088)

  48. Do You Like The LA Times?
    Do You Like The LA Times? Well Patterico does. So much so that he spent the entire year picking out their idiocy, so you wouldn’t have to. See his report at Patterico’s Pontifications: Patterico’s Los Angeles Dog Trainer Year in…

    Diggers Realm (7e5830)

  49. The LA Times
    This piece does a wonderful job of listing the LA Times lies and transgressions in 2004. While we all know the snapshots, like a movie…

    Common Sense and Wonder (1af5b3)

  50. Fact-Checking The Los Angeles Times
    Patterico demonstrates to the world what any objectively-thinking person that has ever lived in the Los Angeles basin has known for decades: The Los Angeles Times is not a journalistic endeavor at all, but is nothing more than…

    The Education Wonks (28eb22)

  51. The L.A. Times, the Strib’s Soul Sister
    Here is a link to a Patterico piece that describes the kind of “journalistic excellence” to be found at the Los Angeles Times this year. A paper with rather similar views to my own hometown Star Tribune. I must admit that the LA Times seems to outstr…

    A Million Monkeys Typing (28eb22)

    Los Angeles Dog Trainer Year in Review 2004 — Part One: The 2004 Presidential Election” href=””>PATTERICA REPORTS. This is part one of Patterico’s year end review of the journalistic…

    PRESTOPUNDIT -- "An intense brain-buzz, guaranteed" -- 2blowhards (84db7a)

  53. The LA Times: Dumb or Crooked? You Decide
    Patterico’s LA Times Year-End Summary (Part 1) is up. He looks at the Times’ election coverage and their occasional lapses of objectivity on partisan matters. As is usual for the MSM (of which the Times is but a mundane example)…

    The Interocitor (9a1c22)

  54. Bias-What Bias?
    Blogger Patterico has provided a comprehensive year end round-up of the glaring biases of just one national newspaper, the LA Times. It is thorough and devastating. That his critique could have been about most any of the legacy media publications or …

    :: Political Musings :: (609cbb)

  55. LA Times Evaluation: Needs Improvement
    Los Angeles Dog Trainer Year in Review 2004 — Part One: The 2004 Presidential Election” href=””>Patterico’s Pontifications: Patterico’s Los Angeles Dog Trainer Year in Review 2004 — Part One: The 2004 President…

    Just Some Poor Schmuck (36e489)

  56. LAT in Review
    Patterico offers up the first part of his annual review of the shenanigans and idiocies of the execrable LA Times. It makes amusing, if sometimes depressing, reading. (af7df9)

  57. Target: L.A. Times
    I suspect that there is a reasonably popular blogger (or two, or ten) who is now monitoring the coverage of every major paper in the United States and, unlike the olden days where the only option was a letter to the editor, those bloggers now have an o…

    Pearson's Perspective (56ba83)

  58. At Least the Dog Trainer is Good for Something – If You Have A Dog, That Is
    Los Angeles Dog Trainer Year in Review 2004 — Part One: The 2004 Presidential Election”>Patterico’s Pontifications: Patterico’s Los Angeles Dog Trainer Year in Review 2004…

    Daily Pundit (f342d6)

  59. #130 – Dog Trainer Year in Review
    Patterico releases his second annual review of the LA Times’ performance as a masthead of the mainstream media.

    To sum up what Patterico takes all year to point out: they stink.

    Woody's Woundup (28eb22)

  60. Forceful Media Criticism

    Probably no individual on the planet spends more time dissecting and criticizing the Los Angeles Times than Patterico. You can read his year-end review of the paper’s reporting

    Dean's World (11ee8e)

  61. Los Angeles Dog Trainer Year In Review
    This and this is not just an example of masterful blogging, it’s an entire year’s worth of masterful blogging. And i’m not just saying that because i hate the L.A. Times. Bravo Patterico….

    annika's journal (1483fa)

  62. Dog Trainer Trained
    Patterico takes the Dog Trainer to task in his year-end review of my city’s major “newspaper” — it’s definitely made of paper, but I use the term loosely. It’s beyond me how he found the energy to sift through the necessary piles of rubbish to find th…

    Michael Williams -- Master of None (821c19)

  63. MSM Bias, Exhibits A
    Patterico, of Patterico’s Pontifications, sums up the year for the LA Times, which he has seemingly appropriately dubbed the

    Joust The Facts (af7df9)

  64. Year end review of the L.A. Times
    Patterico of Patterico's Pontifications is the sine qua non of critics of the L.A. Times. I admit to not paying as much attention to the paper as I should, but at least I can pass along these three excellent pieces. His trio of items starts with a…

    No Illusions (1f81d4)

  65. 2004 at the Los Angeles Dog Trainer
    The LA Times: all the credibility of Art Schlichter at the dogtrack… holding a Mastercard in the name of Pablo Rodriquez. I laughed, I cried, it changed my life.

    Doug Ross @ Journal (28eb22)

  66. Friday’s Daily News
    The “Stinginess” Of U.S. Aid – Are We Stingy? – Bruce Bartlett, Unexpected Tsunami Heroes: Bloggers – Human Events Corporations Donate Millions, Supplies – Dying To Pay Taxes – Adam Smith Blog Taxp…

    The Club for Growth Blog (23fd39)

  67. Patterico Reviews The 2004 Performance Of The LA Times
    I’m a little late posting this link, but be sure to read Patterico’s excellent review of the Los Angeles Times for 2004, in two parts. Patterico has maintained his high standard of media review that he began in 2003 and…

    Captain's Quarters (9bd2a3)

  68. Meanwhile, Over In Big Media
    Here’s a round-up of a few year-end stories on this, the last day of 2004: Cathy Seipp looks at the wacky year of big media in general. Thomas Hibbs says it’s been a Passionate year for film. Patterico notes that…

    Ed (1e5ec6)

  69. As the Media Crumbles…
    Patterico Presents the Parade of Prevarication and the Penchant for Preconception, Predilection, Predisposition, and Prejudice, that is the Los Angeles Dog Trainer [aka the LATimes] Part One examines the paper’s coverage of the 2004 presidential electi…

    Knowledge Is Power: (8cd1ff)

  70. The LA Times year in review
    Patterico, LA Times critic extraordinaire, has a remarkably in-depth look back at the LA Times in 2004. Part 1 is here and Part 2 is here.

    As usual, superb work by Patterico. Much better reading than what you’ll find in the paper that is the subj…

    Commonwealth Conservative (a936fc)

  71. More “Gotcha” Journalism
    Justice Thomas Reports Wealth of Gifts The LA Times breathlessly reports that Justice Clarence Thomas received $42,000 in gifts since joining the high court, much more than any other justice. The Times of course sees dark forces at work. But…

    Just Some Poor Schmuck (36e489)

  72. More “Gotcha” Journalism
    Justice Thomas Reports Wealth of Gifts The LA Times breathlessly reports that Justice Clarence Thomas received $42,000 in gifts since joining the high court, much more than any other justice. The Times of course sees dark forces at work. But…

    Just Some Poor Schmuck (36e489)

  73. Los Angeles Dog Trainer Year in Review 2004
    Its difficult to understand the degree of anti Bush sentiment which exists, and in fact why it exists. But that aside, the degree to which apparently reputable newspapers like the LA Times sought to manipulate their readers views is quite…

    Why ..... (8ab92f)

  74. Another Righteous Fisking
    A blogging prosecutor, Patterico, specializes in fisking what used to be known as the Whale, the Lost Angeles Times. Patterico unkindly calls it the “dog-trainer.”

    The Whale nickname refers both to the size and thickness of the paper, and its domi…

    As the Top of the World Turns (28eb22)

  75. Patterico Fisks the Whale
    We don’t read the LA Times in our house. When I visit the Penguin Café in Laguna Beach I borrow it from the basket, and at Phillipe’s in L.A. I actually buy it and pay sales tax to boot.

    As the Top of the World Turns (28eb22)

  76. Oatterico 2, LA Times 0
    As blogger smackdowns of the media go, Los Angeles Dog Trainer Year in Review 2004 — Part One: The 2004 Presidential Election” href=””>this qualifies as probably one of the best I’ve read. The Los Angeles Times …

    The Peoria Pundit (f61b28)

  77. Patterico 2, LA Times 0
    As blogger smackdowns of the media go, Los Angeles Dog Trainer Year in Review 2004 — Part One: The 2004 Presidential Election” href=””>this qualifies as probably one of the best I’ve read. The Los Angeles Times…

    The Peoria Pundit (f61b28)

  78. Patterico takes the Times to task
    A must read today…

    Shouting into the Wind (296186)

  79. The LA Times gets a righteous ass-kicking
    Patterico’s Pontifications does an absolutely brilliant job of exposing the bias in the LA Times coverage of the events of 2004 with a particular eye to the election. Part one is here and part two is here. Yes, it is long enough that it needed two s… (b46d78)

    If Tucker Carlson Stayed at CNN…? Patrick Frey has begun his annual review of the LA Times. Guess which broadcast news organization selects Bloggers are their People of the Year. MSM Slams Bush but ignores Kofi Ski Vacation. Tin Foil…

    The National Debate (d85b52)

  81. Our degenerating media
    Patterico’s Pontifications has a couple posts (post 1, post 2) reviewing some of this year’s bias and sloppiness in the Los Angeles Times. Needless to say, the Times overdid themselves.

    Maybe this Harvard professor should read them too.

    Sounding The Trumpet (28eb22)

  82. Patterico pontificates
    L.A. blogger Patterico has split his annual year-end rant from the political right about the Los Angeles Times into two installments. Part one finds liberal bias rampant in the paper’s coverage of the presidential campaign. Part two takes on what he ca…

    L.A. Observed (ccf68e)

  83. Late Linkage
    I missed these over my break: Patterico’s Los Angeles Dog Trainer Year in Review 2004 — Part One Patterico’s Los Angeles Dog Trainer Year in Review 2004 — Part Two Marvel as Patterico takes some serious bites out of the…

    INDC Journal (363f9e)

    I notice the L.A. Times has a new feature called “Outside the Tent,” which it describes as… An experimental column in which the Los Angeles Times invites outside critics to take their best shot at Southern California’s heaviest newspaper. I’ll…

    Michelle Malkin (2d1d7a)

  85. Liberal Media Bias
    Patterico has a thorough thrashing of the L.A. Times, showing just how lopsided the converage was this year. L.A. Times rivals the Boston Globe in terms of liberally biased reporting, and rarely has it been documented as well as Patterico has done it….

    Chasing the Wind (a936fc)

  86. […] 17;s monopoly is a huge part of its problem. Do you think a newspaper could get away with this if it […]

    Patterico's Pontifications » Susan Estrich Begins New Anti-L.A. Times Web Site (0c6a63)

  87. […] paper’s bias can get a representative sample of my coverage of the paper by clicking here. For full […]

    Patterico's Pontifications » GM Pulls L.A. Times Advertising (0c6a63)

  88. […] Posting may be light over the next few days, as I work on the third annual Dog Trainer Year in Review. (The first two installments are here and here.) I’m not sure how I can possibly get it done, but I’m going to try. […]

    Patterico’s Pontifications » Posting Will Be Light (421107)

  89. […] Links to Patterico’s prior LA Times bias reviews– – 2004 Part 1 (Presidential Election) – 2004 Part 2 (the rest of the year’s events) – […]

    BizzyBlog » Magnificent Obsession: Patterico Chronicles a Year of LA Times Bias (34f45e)

Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.3878 secs.