Patterico's Pontifications

2/24/2005

Why Do You (Not) Read the Los Angeles Times?

Filed under: Dog Trainer — Patterico @ 8:11 pm



I have a simple question for you, and I would like an answer from as many people as possible:

Do you read the L.A. Times? If so, why? If not, why not?

If you have cancelled your subscription, tell us why.

What bugs you about the paper? Is there anything about it that you do like?

Even if you have expressed your views on these issues before, please explain them again here.

Ideally, I’d like to get a response from all of my readers. All ten of you.

I said this morning that the reporters and editors at The Times could learn a lot by reading the comments here. Dafydd ab Hugh then e-mailed me with the excellent suggestion that I should devote a single comment thread to readers’ views about The Times.

Be as brief or as detailed as you like. I may leave this post at the top of the page, as long as I am getting responses.

Bloggers: if you blog your answer and e-mail me with the link, I will link your post at the bottom of this post. Consider it a minor-league version of Hugh Hewitt’s Vox Bloguli.

Once we have a good collection of answers, I will send the link to someone at The Times. You never know: it could even be fodder for a future “Outside the Tent” piece.

UPDATE: The first blogger to blog his response to my question: Hugh Hewitt. Thanks to Hugh for getting people involved — and for being the first blogger (as far as I know) to come up with the idea of the online symposium.

UPDATE x2: BoiFromTroy blogs his answer.

UPDATE x3: Here is the response of California Mafia.

UPDATE x4: More comments at this thread at “Oh, That Liberal Media.”

UPDATE x5: Still more comments here.

143 Responses to “Why Do You (Not) Read the Los Angeles Times?”

  1. Reader #11 here. I don’t live in Socal and don’t subscribe to the LAT. My brother who lives in San Clemente does, though he just moved from Redondo Beach and should have used the opportunity to get the OC Register.

    My antagonism towards The Times goes back about 8 years, when I began reading their biased articles posted to Free Republic. They have been further out in left field, and further divorced from reality than either the NY Times or the Washington Post. I also deeply resent that through legal attrition they, along with the Washington Post, forced Free Republic to post only article excerpts and not full articles despite the obvious “fair use” for discussion purposes allowed by the First Amendment.

    I concluded they were incurable in 2000 when they edited out George Will’s reference to Juannita Broadderick in his syndicated column. I didn’t know it was their job to edit out key points made by major columnists for their readers. Of course, I believe the Times managed to avoid mentioning Juannita even once when her rape allegation was made and she was on NBC Dateline with Lisa Myers.

    Their sports coverage appears to be very good the few times I’ve seen it. If I lived in LA, I’d consider subscribing to a “no-news” version that is apparently being offered to those who call to cancel the paper because of its bias. But I would look at a lot of other alternatives for getting my information first.

    Tom Blumer (210b95)

  2. I don’t take any print newspapers. If I want to hear Liberal drivel, all I need to do is talk to 98% of my co-workers. I live in the San Francisco Bay Area, and frankly, I get enough Liberal B.S. during my regular life which I already hate. Why would I want to pay for a newspaper just to read more of it?

    Kasey (c33c52)

  3. You’d feel right at home in Bakersfield. šŸ™‚

    Gary Kozy (MDPA) (892264)

  4. 1. I read The Dog Trainer when I have nothing else to read at lunch. I usually do all my newspaper reading at lunch. In recent months, I’ve been raiding my company’s WSJ for lunch reading material.

    2. I have a subscription that will not be continuing for a fifth year. I simply got tired of the substandard reporting, not to mention bias.

    3. The fact that the paper consider Republican evil, and I’m a registered Republican is a good start on my complaint against The Dog Trainer. For months, the only thing that kept me from outright cancelling the subscription is the Sports section and the Friday Fry’s Electronics Ad.

    BigFire (b30455)

  5. Hi, I have always been a news junkie and love to read about current events. I used to buy and read the Times everyday. Several years ago I stopped buying it and would only read linked articles from online sources. I don’t feel I have missed anything.

    The first thing I recall being irritated at was the headlines of the articles. It seemed as though some juvenile 60’s leftist was writing them. They were unbeliveably immature. It has improved in this way though.

    Another major thing was that the local news content reflected politically correct issues. One could drive around the city and see things that were never mentioned. Fairly recent examples of this were its “expose” of how bad LAUSD was. Well, duh, it was about 15 years too late. My conclusion was that they were part of the establishment which is now their old 60’s liberal pals and that they really do not have much new to say. The same goes for the recent long article on the King-Drew situation. Still way too late and not really hard-hitting. They could have said a lot more about the situation. They still are afraid of rocking the establishment which is now old-fashoned liberal (the 60’s style, that is) and which obviously reflects their views. It would be nice if they could find reporters who were really interested in trying to be objective and discuss the politically incorrect. I know this is considered passe now but it doesn’t have to be.

    I also remember a number of years ago there was a long article about Russia and Chechnya. The writer was so naive that she expressed suprise that the TV the Russian soldiers were watching was looted! Tell me it’s not so.

    They have also been obsessed with ethnic and cultural issues in a way that they only say positive things and stay away from the negative.

    One can read long and detailed articles that sometimes may be useful but often are superfluous. For local news the Press-Telegram and Daily News are much better. And to find out the important things about Los Angeles it is great to read the Los Angeles Business Journal. Their style is not pretentious and very informative.

    I don’t think they will change very much. I remember a book back in the 60’s which I think was called the Structure of Scientific Revolutions which stated that change came only after the old guard finally passed away. Think Lysenko-ism, think LA Times.

    This is my quick stream of consciousness view of the Times for now.

    Milan/Redondo Beach CA (886969)

  6. Cancelled my subscription 10-15 years ago, when they started calling weekly with discount offers I demanded they take me off their telemarketing ‘call list’, then I got a call from someone who wasn’t a telemarketer asking why I had cancelled. “Don’t like the editorial content of your articles,” I said. Never heard from them again. When I want to read it now, I buy it from a newstand or at Starbucks. Anonymously…

    If you read it real fast without much retention, it’s almost like news. But they have no willingness to admit that when they write from a ‘perspective’ it inherently reflects their bias. They are beyond education on the issue.

    The comics are kinda nice.

    Jim (763736)

  7. We subscribe to the LA Times. My husband reads the sports. My daughter reads the weather.

    I get the daily headline email. If I want to read something, sometimes I will read it in the paper rather than online. Pictures are better in the paper. I mostly use the LA Times to track what the local headline focus is. I probably read one or two stories a week. They are mostly human interest like the hippo and tortoise who bonded after the tsunami.

    Justene (848729)

  8. I usta read it just for the Calendar and the crossword puzzle. I’d glance at the headlines, but throw most of it away.

    Then I stopped it entirely. I picked up the OC Register instead. Kept that for 10 years. Only dropped it when I moved.

    I have a book of the front pages of the LA Times; got it as a gift from the LA Times to encourage me to renew. Nice book, but looking at the headlines reminds me why I don’t like the Times and why I don’t buy the Times. (Double meaning intended.)

    steve miller (fca749)

  9. I have read the Los Angeles Times since I was in fourth grade at Center Street Elementary School in El Segundo – over 40 years ago.

    Lately (the past two years), I have been reading it almost exclusively on-line unless there is a piece that I really fancy and then and only then will pick up the old school version.

    The Times has always been too liberal in their editorial policy for me but that is a given. This is indicative of Main Stream Media.

    I had the opportunity to attend many journalism functions (Sigma Delta chi) and played around with a good many journalists while at USC. Some now have or have had good positions at the Times.

    Will I continue to read the Dog Trainer? Why of course! Kinsley makes me laugh at his absurd positions and bias. Patterico puts it all in perspective. will I go back to the print edition….Nah too tired of ink on the hands.

    I would only wish the Times would incorporate Comments and Trackback though like the Ventura County Star. Then, when Kinsley or one of the Sports guys really pisses me off – I can write my feelings straight away and give them a laugh…because I know…they are journalists.

    Flap (27ae41)

  10. I’ve never read the times, and I rarely read printed newspapers at all… so why should I pay to do so? I only go to the Times website when it’s linked by a blogger or by Drudge.

    Michael Williams (ea3f6c)

  11. I take a look at the online edition of the LA Times very day or so. The first thing I do is look for the Ramirez cartoon. I’ve always loved political cartoons, and he is the best in the business. I then check out the op-eds, then look through the headlines.

    I cancelled my subscription to the LA Times. I get the OC Register instead. I cancelled the paper because of its omnipresent leftist/ Democrat political bias, on every page of the paper. This unrelenting bias is really insufferable for anyone who is not a leftist / Democrat. I’ve had enough and will never subscribe to the paper again.

    A great thing about checking out the paper online is that the bias of the paper isn’t “in your face” as strongly as when the paper is in your hand, and you read the whole thing. You can skip 99.97% of the paper and skip with it huge piles of leftist / Democrat bias.

    What I like about the paper:

    — Good / detailed reporting in the news pages now and then. I like the long news pieces that tell me something about the world I didn’t know. The LA Times nails one of these ever once in awhile.

    — Ramirez.

    — Once in a blue moon there is a quality piece in the op-eds. Rare, but it happens.

    — that’s it.

    PrestoPundit (cd3f73)

  12. I stopped the Times so many years ago I can’t remember how many they are. Even before blogtruth, I knew I couldn’t believe their reporting since it was biased so far left. I don’t mind leftiness, if it’s true. Not seeing their paper has had no affect on my life or knowledge of current events whatsoever. And it has saved me considerable $$$.

    From time to time I get a call to subscribe, sometimes at deep discounts. I tell them no thanks, I have no trust in you guys.

    Meanwhile, I enjoy hearing about the recurring reductions in staff at the paper.

    For info on LA politics, read LA Weekly–some good Times reporters moved over there.

    ManlyDad (50fd8d)

  13. I subscribe to the Sunday LA Times. (and Sunday OC Register. MSNBC, Fox, and CNN during the day, one of the network newscasts daily, Meet the Press and FOX News Sunday, and a daily blogroll of about 20, including left and right partisans).

    I havenā€™t cancelled my subscription because I think it is important to see what the ā€œother sideā€ is thinking and doing. I am a partisan for individual rights, and I see the LA Times as a partisan for group rights.

    The LA Times part of the nanny-state echo chamber, and I know that when they omit information, distort realities, and make ā€œmistakesā€ that always point in one direction they actually helping my side. If you are a leftist and get the bulk of your information from the LA Times you are being deceived by your own side. There is no better example of this than the ridiculously biased polls put out by the LA Times before the recall election.

    motionview (ab0ee4)

  14. 11 years ago we cancel our LA Times subscription because we could not take the slant. A couple of years ago a local Fallbrook paper, “The Village News” started publishing and it included a subscription to the LAT free. After a bit we again could not take the editorial bias and asked to have the LAT portion of our subscription canceled. But, no, to receive the Village News you must! continue to receive the LAT. So we canceled the Village News just to stop the LAT. If you drive around Fallbrook you will see unread LATs littering the streets. Obviously, others do not want it either. The Times probably uses the circulation numbers to charge their advertisers, but actually they are unread papers, littering the streets, wasting paper. Patterico, expose this, stop the waste, save the planet, and free our local newspaper readers from the Evil Empire News!

    Anthony Price (6d2d6b)

  15. Started delivering it and reading it in 1947.
    The changes that came with Otis Chandler and the continued drift left finally wore me out and over wifes objections I canceled about 3 years ago but wife decided to re-subscribe for features, calendar, book review and sunday real estate section. Its on her dime.
    Had several hostile exchanges with readers rep Jamie Gold.
    But since it is here I do enjoy the daily bridge column. And on Sunday if I am in a confrontational mood I look to assess the absurdity presented by David Shaw.
    reb

    R E Billings (b35b5e)

  16. Well, in LA there are two choices: the Times, which for all its faults is a serious newspaper, or the local paper, which is the AP wire wrapped with silliness. Only the Daily News comes close — and for LA city and Valley news it’s better than the Times — but even the Daily News is mostly AP wire and silliness.

    Of course, the Times is slanted beyond belief as is required for a respectable MSM newspaper. But in among that is depth and weight which you won’t get with the locals. You do have to know how to read it.

    Thank God there’s the Internet, blogs, and all thopse other online news sources — both other papers and magazines such as the Standard and NRO. One day they might replace things like the Times, but right now it’s the only choice for dead tree news in LA.

    Kevin Murphy (6a7945)

  17. I should point out I read the Times back to front: sports briefly, then the fairly good business section, the Metro and the op-eds, then the front page. I usually don’t get too far into the A section except for major stories.

    Takes about 40 minutes in the morning, then I go online and read the blogs, NYT headlines and check Drudge for oddities.

    Kevin Murphy (6a7945)

  18. I scan several online news services and newspapers, but the LA Times usually gets nothing more than a cursory headline scan- and that only to see what news is ā€˜in fashion.ā€™

    LA Times suffers from MSMā€™s most prevalent and debilitating disease: professional journalists that have no frame of reference other than journalism. Why does Forbes, the Wall Street Journal and the Blogsphere have credibility? Because they employ news collectors and commentators that have some experience other than ā€˜gotchaā€™ journalism.

    Jason (63315d)

  19. Cancelled years ago due to mideast coverage. I buy the Sunday version for a buck at Walgreens for the ads and coupons. I miss seeing Ramirez’s cartoons.

    Wish that Riordan had made that pro-LA conservative paper that was once talked about. We need an LA version of the NY Sun.

    Aaron's Rantblog (5b17cc)

  20. Riordan tried. We had the online Examiner for a while. A group of conservative bloggers who would hope to make the jump from hobby to job could probably make a go of it. You’d need a functioning high quality group, a couple of people with journalism credentials and a couple of business people. Then someone with the vision to hold it together. There are a couple of sites on the web that have that mix for things other than a conservative LA paper and they are about to reach critical mass to make the jump or show that the paradigm is not there yet. It is a good time for a paper like that to start. I simply don’t have the time but I have been involved enough that I have a good idea of how it could be done. You don’t need Riordan-type money.

    Justene (cf6709)

  21. 1. No, never read the LA Times anymore – I read this blog instead because it actually reports news properly. The liberal bias and complete disregard for facts is off-putting at the best of times.

    2. No subscription.

    3. The fact that people are getting their news from that paper, and actually relying on it. The LA Times has a horrid record with facts and bias. I like the Outside The Tent idea, however – as long as it is primarily open to the paper’s critics.

    Leigh (0848cb)

  22. I had a subscription to the Times for many years: my parents took the L.A. Times for my entire life until I left home in 1980; when I returned to LA, I took my own subscription from 1987 through 2002.

    I had grown increasingly disenchanted with the steady leftward drift. What finally drove me over the edge, to the point where I still took the Times but refused to read anything but the comics, was when they hired Nina Totenberg to review the book Strange Justice, a savage attack on Clarence Thomas by Jill Abramson and Jane Meyer — and the Times never even mentioned that Totenberg was a major figure in the book itself, which praised her to the point of idolatry! One would think that it would be important to know that Totenberg was, in essence, “reviewing” a hagiography of herself.

    For a long while, a number of years, I clung grimly to my subscription, just reading the comics. But finally, it was too much for me to justify. After reading the post-9/11 defeat-mongering and slime-spreading, I finally canceled my subscription.

    I felt an immediate sense of relief, no longer feeding money to a group of people who would be quite happy, I am sure, to see me dead: an anti-liberal Jew who supports not only George Bush but also (heavens!) Israel, Arik, and Bibi. Until and unless the Los Angeles Times undergoes a radical red-ectomy, they will never again get a single dime from me.

    In fact, I wouldn’t even consent to take the paper for free. I don’t want it in my house. I still have a small stack of Timeses sitting around from a couple of years ago; I use them as placemats when I lie on the floor and eat cereal.

    If only I had a dog….

    Dafydd

    Dafydd (df2f54)

  23. I don’t read the LA Times on a regular basis — when I do it’s on the web, typically when I’ve followed a link from this site. I live in Alabama, so subscribing to a newspaper that’s based a couple of thousand miles away doesn’t really seem like the thing to do. I get my dose of liberalism from NPR in the afternoons as I drive home.

    What do I like about the paper? I suppose it’d be the entertainment value of some of the slanted (and sometimes patently false) stories that are printed (again, typically I find them referred to here). While that’s all nice and entertaining for me, it’s alarming in a way. I’d imagine that there are many people out there who take the paper at face value and wind up basing their opinions on some of the garbage it prints.

    I’m sure that there’s decent material in the paper sometimes (classifieds, comics, etc.). I don’t read that part of it, though.

    Laudio

    (BTW, the “Live preview” thing is cool. However, it makes me paranoid that someone’s sitting there watching me correct and re-correct my post: “Hee hee! Look at that goofy crap Laudio just typed… No, wait — he erased it… But we’ve got it on film!”)

    Laudio (06d15b)

  24. I read your blog but not the LATimes. Why? I live on the east coast. I don’t read the on-line version of the times because they require a password and it’s too much grief. Would I read it otherwise? Maybe. I scan several on-line papers during the day depending on my whims and what is happening.

    David (be3146)

  25. I stopped getting the Times when I realized I was getting only slanted news, with huge areas not reported. Any facts that don’t fit with their agenda, or any stories that don’t fit, simply are ignored. I believe the Calendar section is valuable if you live in LA County, but it isn’t worth the tripe they publish every day. If enough people stop buying the paper, the Tribune Company will have to decide if they want to save this whale.

    John R Whiffen, MD (d98a27)

  26. It’s going to sound absurd, but I dropped the times when they dropped the comic strip “BC”. Johnny Heart did a strip for Easter that had a reference that was too religious for them, so they canned it.

    I’d grown up getting up in the morning, getting the paper, reading the comics, then doing the rest of the morning ritual. There were PLENTY of other things about the paper tha rubbed me wrong – slanted news coverage, getting rid of “outtakes” in the Calender section. Robert Sheere made me feel dirty. But “BC” was the last straw.

    R Riley (d1599a)

  27. Gave up reading it except in the local burger dive where already-read copies are free. Here’s why:

    1. Too damn thick, and most of it of no interest.

    2. Endless inside-baseball articles about the entertainment industry in the Calendar section.

    3. Blatant politicization of coverage, as opposed to editorials, such as the sudden “Bimbogate” story just before the runoff election of Scwarzenegger.

    4. The blandness and self-righteousness of a monopoly that, like most things liberal, assumes its own moral superiority.

    5. Not enough local news (Santa Monica first, then Orange County).

    6. Vast improvement in the competitng Orange County Register, which, even though it’s the libertarian Pravda, has no libertarian bias in its news coverage (maybe it should have some in its story selection).

    There you have it. Patterico, keep fisking the Whale.

    Grumpy Old Man (1ef9b8)

  28. I began to subscribe to the LAT when I moved out of my folks house in 1970. The LAT has always been slanted and and biased. For balance, I also used to get the Daily Breeze. When I relocated outside of LA in 1990, I naturally ditched the Times. However since we have moved, I have noticed that the tone and stridency of LAT has increased significantly and so therefore I will not even read the online version.

    Also I refuse to register for the online version as I believe that they will find a way to send my email addy to the DNC for fund raising purposes.

    B Bolton (70d226)

  29. Living in LA all my life (except for that brief foray into New Orleans), I no longer read the Times. I now read the Star News for local stuff.
    The reasons (besides the liberal bias):
    They destroyed the Calendar section; when they went from a tabloid insert into a broadsheet and the content became vapid.
    The Book Review became a forum for pushing their liberal agenda. There seemed to be a review every week on the joys of being gay.
    And, most importantly, the Sports section had columnists that repeatedly cried racism when a player got caught with his pants down. See Plashke,Bill.
    Generally, they just suck and the 50 cents I used to pay now goes for bandwith.

    jim (c4f73f)

  30. I read the LATimes daily. I think that it’s a very, very good paper, and when I’m out of town our papers are saved so that I can read them on return. The LATimes is easily a better paper than the NYT or the WaPo or the SFChron, etc., etc. We in Los Angeles are fortunate in having such a good paper. Yes, its articles frequently show writer, editor, and headline composition bias. So do those of the Wall Street Journal, which I read in electronic form, and which is a good antidote to some of the Times disguised editorials.

    Jerry Zinser (b7fd0f)

  31. PATTERICO wants to know
    what you think of the Los Angeles Times. Scroll down for y thoughts in the comments section. Here’s what Hugh Hewitt had to say: Go and participate if you…

    PRESTOPUNDIT (84db7a)

  32. I got the Dog Trainer when I lived in West LA because I had no choice. Whenever I’ve lived anywhere where there is a choice (San Diego in early the 1990s, Orange County now), I’ve opted for the other paper. I think its political slant is horrible, but I also don’t think it’s a very good paper in other ways. It’s all the political bias and Jayson-Blairness of the New York Times, minus the writing quality.

    Xrlq (5ffe06)

  33. P.S. I did cancel the L.A. Times in disgust while living in West L.A., doing without a paper for the last six months or so that I lived there. The reason I gave the salesman was the paper’s bias. Rather than offer me a news-free edition, he became argumentative, a la “what, don’t you think you are biased, too?”

    Xrlq (5ffe06)

  34. I don’t read the LA Times simply because I feel personally offended by their assumption that their Left bias will pass in my eyes as objective news. I am not a Conservative(even though supporting the WOT probably makes me one in their eyes) and I do not want them to lean towards the Right either.

    All I want them to do is to remember their journalistical duty, informing instead of one-sided reporting. As long as they will not respect my (little) intelligence and present their Truth(tm) as The Only Way, I see no reason why I should suppport them with my money(except on some Sundays for checking out the many adds).

    Nick (bb9003)

  35. My reasons for canceling:

    1. Retro-leftism: as in the Sunday magazine article about a kooky psychiatrist who opines that mental illness doesnā€™t exist, is instead the result of capitalist oppression. This innovative view was first proposed 40 YEARS AGO by one Dr. Huber of Germany who then marched his ā€œoppressedā€ patients out of the hospital, into the Baader-Meinhof movement, and ultimately to their untimely deaths, either by suicide or suicide-by-cop.

    Although more humorous than the above example, I cannot fail to mention Karen Stabinerā€™s article decrying the falling ratings of West Wing which proved to her that people no longer care about serious political issues!! The republic is in peril! Wake up, people, and go to your TVs! Karen, honey, itā€™s a TV SHOW, and an increasingly boring one. All that fast talking cannot disguise the fact that they are saying nothing more edifying than what you might hear at any college Democratic Party meeting.

    2. Manola Darghis off her meds: Political rants disguised as movie reviews.

    3. Psuedo-socialism: Who can ever forget the op-ed raving about how valet parking attendants are the new oppressed class in America and we should just darn well park our own cars. Letā€™s take away their only source of income–yeah, thatā€™ll ā€œliberateā€ them.

    4. Half-page obituaries for every boomer trust fund socialist who has the decency to cork off early.

    5. Psuedo-hipness: like the ad for Versace, I believe–a photo of a womanā€™s semi-naked butt on the first page of the Sunday magazine. Sex is great, butā€¦ I like martinis, too, but not at eight in the morning!

    In summary, I hate them because they have appropriated all the trappings of ā€˜60s culture–except for the innocence and idealism that marked at least the early years–and repackaged it and marketed it to a morally bankrupt, self-appointed elite.

    Patricia (133563)

  36. I read the LAT every day since I could read box scores and continued for 30 years till I simply could not take the liberal slant any more. My tolerance for the slanted journalism and “Westside feel” began to wane when I complained about a very provacative ad in the L.A. Times Magazine. Soon, I received a very patronizing letter from a LAT staffer who essentially said: “Boy, you’re not the only one who complained, but we like the way we’re doing things and we’re not gonna change.”

    I continued to endure the slanted journalism until, about a year latter, they went after Arnold Schwarzzeneger in ablatent attempt to smear him 3 days before the election with a contrived scandal that was timed for maximum damage.

    That was it. I get my news from the WSJ & internet now. I’m done with the LAT. Never again.

    Oh. I did enjoy when T.J. Simers smacked UCLA around. That was always a great read.

    Lou (3f4b89)

  37. I’ve lived in LA for 18 years and never had the slightest urge to subscribe. Other than basketball scores, occasionally the Calendar section, and the weekly ad for Fry’s Electronics there’s no useful information in it.

    TerribleD (56e137)

  38. I took the Times for over 20 years but dropped it, oh, 10 years ago. There was a column by Steve Rosenthal (??) Along with the unthinking lefty bias in the news articles, that was it. No more LA Times – I take the Regsiter and the Long Beach Paper now.

    Dave in Cerritos (025276)

  39. FWIW, from here way out on the progressive side, I don’t read The Times. I don’t like the way the Times has treated its journalists–that’s partially why. I don’t like the out-of-town ownership: that works for people in the suburbs, but it doesn’t for people in the City.

    But let’s take another biz for the sake of comparison: fashion. In LA, you have all these department stores, a thriving corporate retail market–and yet none are home-grown here in LA (Bullock’s died long ago, alas). But also–maybe even as a result of the absentee ownership–you have this thriving street-boutique scene. And not just for “progressive” fashion, but for “conservative” fashion too.

    That’s where I’m at with journalism: I like the street-boutique, not the big corporate anchor store.

    joseph mailander (a8a7df)

  40. In addition to the usual suspect complaints, I criticize the Times’ placement of California stories — see my Localliberty.org blog entry on it. Sometimes they’re on page 1, but sometimes in the “California” section.

    My example of poor trial reporting, likely induced by the reporter’s ideology (Kerri Dunn hate-crime hoax trial).

    Ken Masugi (dc421b)

  41. I grew up on the LA Times, and for my money, there’s no better paper in town when it comes to general quality. (A sad endorsement, I know.) I found the obvious political bias frustrating, but mostly just a nuisance; it’s not hard to read between the lines to get the facts, and I’m a moderate anyway. When they put out the political hit on Schwarzenegger, though, and crossed the line from bias to activism, I cancelled my subscription immediately and convinced others to do the same. I can forgive bias as somewhat natural, but I can’t forgive or trust a news source that lacks journalistic integrity. Dan Rather & Co., are you listening?

    henry rollins in pasadena (a362db)

  42. I’m am a longtime subsciber to the LAT. I was thinking recently, given its coverage of the shooting of a black teenager by the LAPD, and a glowing profile of black poet Nikki Giovanni, that I subscribe to the Los Angeles Sentinel (a paper dedicated to the local black community).

    The coverage of the LAPD is decidedly slanted against the police. There may be the token commentary about the subject that represents a pro-police perspective and/or a position that runs against the grain of rhetoric from the local black “leadership”, but it is literally buried under main front page or metro-section front page(called the “California” section in the paper) stories that, along with the accompanying pictures, convey the clear impression that the LAPD is out of control, and that blacks are its targets.

    The editorial page is ridiculous. I do not take it seriously, and never have. I glance over it each day, and it’s always immediately clear where it stands. It is pathetically, irredeemably, left-leaning in its coverage. It seems to make no pretense otherwise, so I don’t fault the paper for that. On the commentary page, I find the occasional tidbit. Michael Kinsley was brought in last year as opinion and editorial editor, and even though I disagree with him often, he at least brings readable, intelligent focus on important issues, such as SocSec. He’s a plus, but I wish he’d stop giving space to Bill Maher (as he did today) and Al Franken. It’s a waste of space, not because I don’t agree with them (I don’t), but because they’re not funny, and it’s not the funny page anyhow.

    Robert Scheer. What needs to be said of him? Like the editorials, he’s transparently left-wing in his positions. Knee-jerkingly resistant to anything Bush stands for. Sees Karl Rove’s Machiavellian influence in every aspect of the administration and its policies. I scan his Tuesday stories, and read them on occasion in order to grasp the current status of left-leaning thought. He’s very representative of it. the only thing we’ve ever agreed on is drug legalization, but I haven’t seen anything like that in a loooong time. He can be very condescending too, and if you want to enjoy this aspect of his personality, tune into him on KCRW every Friday afternoon, on Left-Right-and Center. It’s a hoot!

    The paper’s Arts section is weak in terms of its coverage of the film biz. It’s a shame, since LA is the home of the movie industry, but it seems that the material could be much more substantive. Just my opinion though, and it is the arts we’re speaking about. I think on architecture, the paper is strong. On the media, it’s rather defensive, but readable. I wish they had literary and movie criticism worthy of its audience. Right now, it doesn’t.

    The Sports secion may be good, but I could care less about sports, so I have no further comment. The Business section seems much better than it was up to a few years ago. Writers such as Sally Hofmeister, James Flanagan, and Michael Hiltzik make it a must read for me.

    All-in-all, the paper’s section A is a bulletin board announcing how the GOP is undermining or threatening causes dear to the left. The stories are valid stories, but they are written with an obvious slant, and sometimes with loaded language, and there is no balance in its surrounding stories. That’s my problem with the LAT, the lack of any semblance of balance. I have to rely on that occasional commentary piece that provides another perspective to the sea of left-perspective writing I observe each day.

    However, I must say that I was very, VERY impressed with the series the paper did last year on Martin Luther King hospital, an awful institution in south L.A. with a long history of mistreating or killing patients, and of general incompetence. The paper took on leaders such as the shameful Maxine Waters, and local council members who have oversight of the institution. It was an admirable series that I would love to see more of, on other topics.

    In the absence of any other major paper in this market (the Daily News is, to me, a Valley paper with weak reporting), I read the LAT. Sometimes I wonder why I read this thing that primarily goes straight to the trash, but I have hope that it will improve, given technology and the current pressures on media for quality and accountability.

    Brian (73b44b)

  43. LAT’s mostly high quality local reporting is not enough to justify the effort needed to screen its rants on state, federal and international issues. i cancelled all but the weekend edition.

    wayne (bc5010)

  44. I was going to email you the link, but couldn’t find your email, so I’ll post it instead.

    http://camafia.blogspot.com/2005/02/how-to-read-newspaper.html

    Thanks

    KG (ce4cf5)

  45. I’ve had offers to subscribe to the Dog Trainer, but I have absolutely no interest in the paper. Other than perhaps comics I get 99% of my news online now as I can sift through all the liberal tripe and find what is actually worth reading. As well as sometimes putting out my own thoughts.

    mvargus (14d205)

  46. I used to subscribe to four newspapers: the L.A. Times, the Simi Valley Enterprise, the L.A. Daily News, and the Wall Street Journal. I dropped the Journal in favor of its on-line edition. The Enterprise was bought out by the Ventura “Red” Star several years ago and became less of a local paper and more of a regional paper (in the old days The Enterprise would publish every single letter to the editor, even if that took up two or three pages). If I need a specific article from the Star I can find it on-line. My wife likes the Daily News, so that’s the only newspaper we still receive. Web sites like CalNews.com and Daniel Weintraub’s blog help keep me current on California news events.

    I cancelled my subscription to the Los Angeles Times right after the 2003 recall election. Their treatment of Schwarzenegger (who I did not vote for) was the final straw. Their sleazy front page efforts to defeat him by libeling him with anonymous accusations just days before the election were outrageous even by the Times’ highly biased standards.

    But the Times had become less and less useful and interesting over the years for other reasons. They used to have an excellent TV Guide section which was customized to each locality, so it just showed the channels (both over-the-air and cable) available in my city. Then they decided that was too difficult and costly, so they went to a matrix of listings for the entire area. You had to find the column corresponding to your local cable company, and you had to ignore the rows of stations which couldn’t be received on your cable system. Okay, I understand that the explosion of television choices made it difficult for a printed guide to keep up. But the worst part was that they tried to pass this off as an IMPROVEMENT. They pretended that it was a feature, and ran a little ad campaign about how much more comprehensive they had made their TV Guide.

    They used to have a Simi Valley section with local news, and then they dropped that in favor of a Ventura County section with a county-wide news bureau. Finally they dropped that and just went with their Southern California edition which might on rare occasions contain two inches on a local story. They gave up trying to compete with other area newspapers, and concentrated on being a giant Southern California paper (with ambitions of becoming a national paper with national influence).

    The Time’s news reporting has always been extremely biased, and their editorials and columnists even worse. So what value were they providing to me?

    I can get far better news reporting (local, state, national, and world) on-line. I can get far better news analysis and opinion on-line. Their TV guide is worthless to me; I now check my personally-customized satellite dish listings on Yahoo. Their local news coverage is piss-poor, unlike the Daily News (or even, by comparison, the Ventura Star). I can get comics elsewhere. I get movie times on-line. I get superb sports coverage of my football team (the Green Bay Packers) from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel’s on-line edition. I can get display ads touting sales from supermarkets and Fry’s Electronics and Walmart, etc. in the Daily News. I never bother anymore with the Times’ expensive classified ads; if I need to buy or sell something used I can turn to eBay or the Recycler.

    In short, there are no longer any good reasons to subscribe to the Los Angeles Times, and lots of reasons to spend my money and time elsewhere.

    Of course this doesn’t stop them from inundating me with telemarketing calls and email and snail-mail begging me to come back. It’s annoying but amusing at the same time, since it just shows how desperate they are.

    Daniel Wiener (0f4830)

  47. I don’t read it. I live on the east coast.
    I have cut out reading papers like the LA Times and the NY Times. I end up getting angry at all the errors and which way the errors always seem to slant.

    Veeshir (937216)

  48. I stopped reading the LA Times in the early 1970s. When I was a student at UCSB the times reported on a visit to the campus by then Governor Ronald Reagan. In a front page article (with photo) it described the demonstration that awaited him. The Regents meeting Reagan attended was held in my dormitory. I personally knew over half the crowd of “demonstrators.” We weren’t demonstrating anything. We couldn’t get into our dorm until after Governor Reagan and has party had entered the building because of security. There was NO demonstration, only a bunch of us students who had to wait for a few minutes. That a “major” newspaper could get the facts so wrong seemed incredible to me. The photo and the article was clearly a setup by the LA Times. The Times editors were biased against Reagan and never missed a chance to paint him (and his policies) in a bad light. The LA Times hasn’t changed much in the 30 years since then.

    RKV (01fc3b)

  49. I read it on the net because it is the only paper of significance in SoCal. I cancelled my subscription in 88. I was tired of the way they ran editorials and “news” articles. I sent several letters from 78 to 88 correcting their misstatements in “news” articles but finally gave up. Not going to finance an anti America paper with my subscription.

    Rod Stanton (8d1477)

  50. I read the LA Times from 1962 to 1993 every single day, without exception. I considered it the finest newspaper in the U.S. during that period. I never read the editorials because I just wasn’t that interested in others’ opinions as long as the news articles gave me enough facts to form my own, but I read every word of the national, local, sports (and comics), and I loved their Thursday recipes section.

    Because of my profession I had the opportunity to read dailies from Miami to Seattle and most points in between, and believed none of them had the consistently high quality of the Times – including the NY Times, which I stopped reading in 1972. (It was a biased, propagandist rag even then).

    I believe the Time’s Proposition 13 coverage was the first break from objective journalism (the first that was so blatant I was offended), but it seemed to recover after that until the mid-1980’s. From that point on, I detected a slow but steady deterioration in quality. When the selective reporting of facts, distortions, editorial opinion disguised as ‘fact’, agenda journalism and just plain, sloppy analysis became endemic, I quite reading it in disgust.

    David/California (5f263b)

  51. RKV – You did not read their endorsement of him in 66? It went like this ” We are endorsing RR for Gov even though all his friends are gangsters and he is a moron because he reads his lines well.” I read it and sent them a letter. Of course it got “circular filed”; is that expression totally out of date?

    Rod Stanton (8d1477)

  52. I get the LA Times Sports section for free on the Internet – and, as KABC Radio host Al Rantel says, “it’s worth every penny. I was a US diplomat posted in Warsaw pre-Velvet Revolution and used to get paid for reading propagandistic dreck in the Polish press. No way I’ll do it for free, so no LA Times. In fact, no Lamestream Media outlets of any kind for that reason.

    A funny sidenote. In my deluded youth, I had a brief relationship with a leading LA Times writer. Here’s a couple of hints: second only in loathsomeness to Robert Scheer, did the LA Times coverup on the Staples Center logrolling, and is known for 8 full-page blathercles about Food Sections. I’m sure you all know who I mean. He’s even more disgusting than you think.

    wendy forward (bf8da4)

  53. I have cancelled the Times several times. My moderate wife subscribes as soon as she notices the paper has stopped. The paper is now in her name (same as People magazine) so it is harder to cancel.

    Outside of the Sports section, I get all my news from the internet.

    Jim Fox (63c5d9)

  54. I cancelled my Times subscription in the early ’80s. I distinctly recall reading the front page article that finally drove me to the OC Register. The piece was on one of Reagan’s trips to Europe and the lead paragraph stated as fact that his motivation in visiting some memorial was cynical and nefarious. Now, I don’t know what Reagan’s motive really was, but neither did the reporter (absent telepathy).

    Reporting speculation as fact is clearly fiction. And I can find better (and better labelled) fiction elsewhere.

    Andrew Ward (17030c)

  55. I read the LATimes daily ā€” for sports and the California section — news from Sacramento — and the Calendar section. The front section is a “NYTimes wannabe” foreign relations section. The national stories are usually wire services or followups from the WP or WSJ. The business section seldom has any self inititated stories that aren’t entertainment industry.

    I think some biases exist, but find them much less threatening to democratic gov’t than you do. Too much effort is put into producing the next Watergate story. I’d prefer more news coverage with the analysis separate. I thought the series on Drew hospital was good, relevant and local. but even there insinuations were made that could only stand up in an even longer article.

    J P Crumrine (55b219)

  56. Do you read the L.A. Times? If so, why? If not, why not?

    Not for the past year. I’m a news junkie, web, radio, etc. Daily News doesn’t cut it. But my 15-year lunchtime ritual of reading the LA Times cover-to-cover was making me irritable every day. Even the obits and Chess column seemed biased, at that point. Once in awhile, I slip and read it but no longer really miss it.

    If you have cancelled your subscription, tell us why.

    I used to buy it off the rack, because the subscription delivery was never satisfactory. The Arnold thing turned me. There were two more incidents that stand out: 1) Patt Morrison wrote a review of the Showtime movie about the Reagans, and it was presented as news in the first section of the Sunday paper; 2) there was a story about the danger cow flatulence posed to the world’s environment, and seven “experts” supporting the premise were quoted. Not a single expert opposing this theory could apparently be found. I wrote to John Carroll, and he made some half-hearted non-response refusing to acknowledge the bias. That was the final staw for me.

    What bugs you about the paper? Is there anything about it that you do like?

    My favorite section is the Business section, then the California section. The ‘first’ section, the thickest, is 80% ads; it is easy to get through. The Calendar (especially the multiple Sunday sections) is now unreadable, except for the advice columns. Home, Health, Auto and all the other specialty sections are tossed. I can’t imagine anyone buys the paper for these sections, and wonder why they linger when the reader hungers for some real content.

    Even if you have expressed your views on these issues before, please explain them again here.

    There are many times when the LAT has a story on the front page that is out-of-date for anyone with internet access. Elections, terrorism, sports, or any story that happens past deadline does not get resolved until 36 hours later. It is a problem, and not my problem. The pictures and stories of blacks and whites, gay couples, etc. are all fine but after awhile it appears to be a concerted effort by the Times to define deviance down. My favorite example was several years ago when they did a feature story on a homeless drug addict who abandoned his wife and children to stack rocks. The Times portrayed this junkie rock-stacker as some kind of heroic ‘artist.’ I couldn’t help but read the article and think that the hero was the wife left alone to fend for her children.

    John Crowley (34e181)

  57. I’ve been reading this paper since Eisenhower was president. Actually, I’m not as old as that makes me sound. I was a precocious child. But I do have a long history with this paper. I used to read it cover to cover. Now I’m done in 5 minutes. I flip through the front section and California, and then I go online.

    My favorite part of any paper is the editorial page, particularly the letters from readers. The letters they publish now are very disappointing. They are all the same. Some days they are 95% liberal. Some days 100%. Many of the letters are just snarky drive-by comments meant to ridicule Bush or Schwarzenegger or conservatives. No reasoning, no argument, just wannabe standup comedians. Very unsatisfying. Also many letters contain factual errors. Often these errors flow directly from errors made in LAT news stories. We all know how well that correction process works. I always wonder if the letters they publish are representative of the letters they receive. I am quite sure they are not representative of public opinion generally. Even LA isn’t that liberal.

    My other complaint about the Times is lack of local coverage. We also subscribe to the Pasadena Star-News, which is essential if you want to read anything about local stories. They simply are not covered in the Times at all. If you live in a neighborhood east of the LA River, forget it. You might as well live on Mars. They used to publish neighborhood editions, but this went by the wayside years ago. If all politics is local, then the Times’ failure to cover local stories just makes it more irrelevant to the daily lives of most people.

    My husband and I have an ongoing argument about whether to cancel the paper. I say yes, he says no, so the status quo prevails and it continues to foul the driveway. It’s a damn shame.

    Frncie (99fd04)

  58. I subscribe to the Seattle Times for articles behind Page 1: local news, and smaller stories that don’t merit the standard spin. I generally don’t read anything on the front page and certainly nothing above the fold. And this in a paper that appears to be much better than the L.A. Times.

    Also, I quit watching TV news when it was ALL O.J., ALL THE TIME. I got fed up with that during the “chase”.

    Dave (4c1557)

  59. I’ve been a news junkie since I went to college in 1980. Bought and read the major newspaper of whatever town I lived in every day, pretty much cover to cover. So I’ve been a Boston Globe, Chicago Tribune, San Francisco Chronicle and then Los Angeles Times subscriber.

    Sure, the leftist slant has always been a little tiresome, but for most of the time I believed there were limits to how the paper would let it creep into key news judgments. I don’t mind my facts with a dollop of editorializing. I can separate out the opinion from the fact.

    But in the late 90s the Times crossed a vital line and started letting their passion for doing “good” in the world infect their commitment to report the basic facts as they stood, whatever the consequences. They no longer reported all the facts of a story, and they started deciding whether or not to run stories based on whether or not they supported the “right” impression of the world. In short, they turned into Pravda, a flabby mouthpiece for a Party line. I think they got too proud, started thinking their mandate from the readership was the grand goal of changing the world for (as they see it) the better, instead of the more humble goal of simply reporting the news.

    Well, that was too much for me. When I can no longer trust the paper to get the plain facts in front of me, it’s worthless. Half the truth is frequently as bad as a lie.

    The last straw for me was, as for many others, the obviously political hit job on Schwarzenegger just before the recall election. I cancelled an 8-year subscription, and I’ve never bought an issue since. I don’t read it online either. To hell with them and their screwed-up sense of priorities. Truth first, you pompous morons, and your (or anyone’s) notions of social justice a distant second.

    OC Dad (db48c2)

  60. I used to subscribe to the Times (Sunday only), on and off. I finally quit for good in mid 2004. Before that, I would just stop by the recycle bin on the way back inside and dump the news and editorial sections.

    Finally, I just gave up. Even the Entertainment section was full of bias, spite, hatred, lies, misinformation and just plain bad reporting. One time too often, in the middle of a movie or music review there was nasty attack on Bush, the Republicans, any and all conservatives, and the religious. Just couldn’t help themselves, I guess.

    Besides all this, they are dishonest. Time and again they would raise the rate without permission, or got to full week instead of just Sunday, cuts weeks off of prepaid subscription, etc. In one case, after cancelling by phone and in writing, I had to cancel my credit card to stop the charges for papers I wasn’t getting. Oh, and they used to literally hound subscibers and ex subscribers on the phone (thank goodness for the “Do Not Call” list).

    I can’t tell you how pleased I am that their circulation is dropping like a rock. And that Craigslist is killing their classifieds.

    Gary (fd7dd2)

  61. I have subscribed to the Times all my adult life (I’m 43). I also worked for the paper for 2 years in the late 1970s as a morning delivery agent. My father was a subscriber for 20+ years. So my family has long ties to the paper. But I’m sorely tempted to cancel my subscription. I can’t stand the liberal bias and the negativity. I would have cancelled long ago except for the superior sports and local coverage, plus I need something to read on the exercise bike.

    Jim (9b3f4a)

  62. Rod, no I was 10 years old in 1966, so I didn’t read their “endorsement” of Reagan. I would not be surprised to find that was the last Republican the LA Times ever endorsed. It would be interesting to get the statistics of presidential and gubernatorial endorsements since WW2. The editorial page as not constructed is a retirement home for old stalinists. Basically, whatever position the Times takes, I find that I am against it. I read the Wall Street Journal daily, and occasionaly read Le Monde (in French) and the Times of London. Really the internet and the blogosphere in particular are just kicking the @$$3$ of the print media. It is not even close.

    RKV (318c79)

  63. I still read the LA Times, I get it free where I work. But, I stopped subscribing when the paper implied that I was greedy, irresponsible, and killed babies by not voting to tax myself during the Orange County bankruptcy. I would get the Daily News but it’s not currently available in Orange County. The only things I still like are the crossword puzzles and Dan O’Neil.

    Pat Patterson (2b5544)

  64. I’m a native Angeleno, and have read the LAT for perhaps 30 years. I cancelled my subscription several years ago, for two reasons. First, I began to understand that they had a socialist agenda which was expressed not only in the editorial pages, but throughout their news coverage. Second, they showed a lack of interest in alternative viewpoints, eg, those shared by the mainstream of American culture. In short, the LAT is lazy and biased.

    I cancelled my subscription, and have resisted all their marketing efforts in order to spare my family from third-rate reporting and agenda-driven news.

    I haven’t read any part of the LAT for a long time, and don’t miss it at all. Our family gets the news from the internet and cable television. In fact, I find it odd that anyone would actually still invest time in reading a paper news source, given the breadth and depth of the new media.

    Will (c3b939)

  65.       I’m looking at what’s website up at the Times right now, Friday, Feb. 25th.

          There’s a report about the “Palestinian suicide bomber.”  The story is written by two Times staff writers.  I note the words “terror” and “terrorist” exist only in quotes from other people, and “murder” doesn’t show up at all.  To the Times, killing four people at random is ‘militancy.’  Since the Times can’t be bothered to even describe the incident straightforwardly, I distrust their reporting on this subject.

          There’s a good article about the Social Security debate, and how it’s getting nasty.  Fair and balanced.

          By contrast, the story about Martha Stewart is filled with innuendo and lack of evidence.  Stewart’s public approval has gone up a good deal since her conviction.  This is attributed to people ‘staying on message’ and ‘damage control.’  The possibility that Stewart has behaved well and deserves the respect she’s received is not examined.  Unfair and biased.

          The story about the spreading Chechnya conflict seems good, but the story about Larry Summers is inaccurate and biased.

          The rest is much the same.  There’s too much spin and error for me to bother with the Times.  So I don’t subscribe, and seldom read it.

    Stephen M. St. Onge (15e0d0)

  66. The only reason I have not canceled my subscription is that my wife will not let me. She only reads the Calendar section but insists it is indespensable. I read the sports section once in a while and articles in the online version occasionally.

    I regard its political reporting as little more than the Democratic party’s house organ. For reasons that have been well documented here, I consider it highly biased and hostile to religion, traditional families, and criminal justice agencies.

    Stu707 (b13883)

  67. I cancelled after 18 years because I simply could not trust them anymore. Their radical (not just left wing) bias gradually ended up permiating every section except sports.

    I hung on for awhile then gave them the heave-ho last summer. It was sad, really, but they left me with no other choice.

    Grace (ab530a)

  68. I live on the east coast, but that wouldn’t preclude my reading the LAT in these days of Internet access. However, as a subscriber to this blog, I just don’t see the point in wasting what little time I have available for staying current on the important issues facing us on a source that has no respect for unbiased reporting.

    Traditional journalism has needed a funeral for many years, ever since the mainstream media (MSM) decided to manipulate politics instead of report politics.” The LAT is a perfect example. So, to answer your question, I do not read the Times – with the exceptions of the excerpts you publish here.

    RedJacket (c466f4)

  69. I quit reading the Times because their content stinks, and I didn’t want to pay 50 cents at the newsstand for fishwrap.

    Also, as a former college newspaper layout editor, I wonder if the format of the paper has contributed to its being seen as a liberal bastion of filth, er, content. The paper changed a while back to a serif font, giving it a faux first impression of cosmopolitanism (can anyone say New York Times). Also, the general column size has been widened, and the opinion sections are quite boxy. This is a marketing ploy; COME AND READ THIS! IT’S IMPORTANT BECAUSE IT’S DESIGNED DIFFERENTLY! What. Ever. That is so USAToday. Ick.

    Chris Naaden (85c0ca)

  70. I’ve subscribed intermittently to the Sunday-only edition, and had the subscription hassles mentioned by many above — We’re going to upgrade your subscription to weekly because you’ve been such a good customer! (This before I’d paid the second bill.) No, I want Sunday only because I’m gone lots of weekdays. Can you make a note of that? Evidently not; next week, same call. Don’t get me started on the delivery hassles. The sales weenie could find my condo, but the deliveryperson? Nah, just dump it by the mailboxes.

    I used to buy the paper two or three days a week to read over lunch. I didn’t expect much, editorially speaking, from a paper that could keep Robert Scheer as a regular op-ed columnist (and I didn’t get it, either) but the coverage of the recall election finally did it for me. The polls straight from the Gray Davis’ camp, the editorials bemoaning this perversion of democracy, and finally the late hit on Schwarzenegger — that finally made up my mind. At the time I didn’t have a subscription, and haven’t had one since, and when I want to read the paper over lunch, I’ll take the OC Register or even USA Today.

    Jimmy (8fc295)

  71. After subscribing to the Times for 25-30 years, I canceled in about 1995. I was a disgruntled reader for several years before finally breaking away. Before that I couldn’t imagine not waking up and settling in with my coffee and the Times. As many before me have already stated, the paper moved too far to the left for me. I guess you could say we became ”disenfranchised” readers.

    Having been away from the paper for several years, it is a little difficult to give exact examples of the what caused me to stop reading the paper. I can only give a general impression of my dissatisfaction.

    The Times has a preoccupation with the extreme ends of our society. They are equally infatuated with the extremely wealthy ‘beautiful people’ of Hollywood and the Westside, as they are with the poor and struggling from the minority communities. The mainstream citizens are ignored entirely except for when they are being blamed for all of society’s woes. This was most noticeably apparent following the Rodney King riot. Where many of us viewed that situation as a bunch of thugs with poor impulse control getting in touch with their inner most primitive rage, the Times took it as an opportunity to write article after article about all of the ways whitey was to blame for the misery Maxine Waters perpetuates in the black community. Well, I don’t share the Times’ guilt complex and I got tired of reading about it day after day.

    Susan (fbeb2b)

  72. We have been subscribers of the Times for more than 25 years. We also take the O.C. Register. We continue with the times because my husband prefers their business and sports sections. I read the news section and editorial page because I feel I need to know what the left is saying and thinking. My biggest gripe with the paper is the way they often word headlines to give the reader who’s just scanning a totally wrong picture of what an issue is really about. Case in point, about 10 days ago when the story broke about the so-called friend of Pres. Bush who taped their conversations, the Times article’s subheadline was something like “Bush admits smoking marijuana.” You had to read the entire article to find out that Bush was scolding Gore for admitting that he smoked pot and said, “as president, I would never admit . . .” In other words, it was a rhetorical statement, not an admission.

    Another thing that gripes me is the way they can’t ever let go of something they think impunes a Republican. For example, they never write anything about Halliburton without including a phrase like, “the company that V.P. Cheney ran for 5 years before he was elected.” It’s now been 5 years since Cheney resigned from Halliburton, but they want to be sure the readers don’t forget that Cheney worked there. I’m sure when Halliburton is cleared of any wrong doing, they’ll stop mentioning his name.

    I could go on and on, but those are a couple of recent examples.

    Jackie Warner (95d9f3)

  73. As an aside, next time you’re in the library, look at some Times copy from, say, the late ’80s. I recently did, and it’s remarkable the amount of “some experts fear” or “some analysts say” slant language that has crept into the news sections of today. I agree with the other posters: t’s advocacy, not news.

    Patricia (133563)

  74. Here in south Orange County there must be serious circulation problems for the L.A. Times. Last Sunday inside the local Ralph’s, two young men were giving away that days big edition of the paper for free. During my time in the store I didn’t notice anyone who took them up on their offer. When I was offered a freeby, I declined, stating that I already had a version of the “unreadable” paper at home. One of the men then said “another brainwashed!” My “clean” mind surmised that insulting a subscriber wasn’t the best way to promote or reinforce readership. But the L.A. Times has become a niche paper, only for those who hate America and conservatives, or maybe just want to know what the far left is willing to print.

    I subscribe to this biased fish wrap only because my wife insists on getting the art related news. But I call the paper every six months and demand the “new subscriber rate,” thereby salvaging an ounce of dignity. To me, Robert Scheer is the worst example of bias. Simply put, he promotes lies against our country. The Lynch rescue “hoax” was the worst in a long list of unpardonable journalistic attrocities committed by him and the paper.

    Paul (194100)

  75. I cancelled my subscription in November 1978, and have not allowed the paper to be brought into my home since.

    Some of you may remember the 1978 election. Proposition 13. The Democratic legislature, in fear of the initiative, has passed a watered-down version that required ballot confirmation as Proposition 8.

    The LA Times concocted a bogus poll “proving” that the electorate preferred Prop 8 to Prop 13, and ran it as a news story, on the front page, within 48 hours of the election.

    Prop 13 was passed by about 70%. Prop 8 didn’t even receive a majority. I cancelled that afternoon, and don’t miss it at all. Neither their tactics, nor their politics, nor their veracity has improved in the intervening 27 years.

    PS: I enrolled in the on-line version the LA Times a few years ago to read a specific article that had been published there. Within days, I was overrun with Times-sourced spam (eg. whose “From” address had an latimes.com domain). When I wrote the on-line editor, she responded that this was a service provided to their advertisers. I cancelled immediately, and have not renewed since. To the best of my knowledge, the LA Times is the only major periodical in the nation to relentlessly spam their on-line subscribers.

    Steve Levy (9122b0)

  76. In general, the LA Times irrefutably tends to the left of most issues, in the op ed section and the “news” sections.

    In specific, during the CA recall election in fall ’03, the LA Times rushed a story to the front page that accused now governor Arnold Schwarznegger of being a womanizer. According to columnist Jill Stewart, the LA Times refused to print a story that they were following that accused ousted governor Grey Davis of throwing temper tantrums and mistreating his staff during his stint as governor – something that I would say deserves equal treatment as the Schwarznegger story.

    To me it’s no different than Dan Rather, who readily ran a story based on obviously falsified documents to hurt a Republican, and completely shunned the story of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth because it would have hurt the Democratic candidate. Bias can be shown not only in the stories that are presented, but also by the stories that are ignored.

    John (059715)

  77. I began reading the Los Angeles Times during the last presidential election as I was sick of my local paper covering the campaign in an extrememly biased, conservative fashion. Also, I noticed from my internet news-reading that many very important articles never made it into the paper. The Times, though it does have a liberal slant on most issues, does cover the news more thoroughly than the Whittier Daily News.

    Margaret Billard (808b29)

  78. 1. I subscribe. More so out of habit than anything. Been reading it for over 30 years. But the bias is driving me nuts and I think I only keep it to get riled up.

    2. I’ll likely cancel b/c its bias is becoming unbearable and I get most of my info from more honest and probative sources.

    3. The blatant bias, the idiotic unsigned editorials, Robert Scheer, and reading the letters from so many ignorant loony liberal leftwing fellow citizens bug me the most.

    About the only thing I like are the movie listings, the sunday real estate section and the weekly food section. If I cared about sports I’d like that too.

    Don Rory (1db03d)

  79. I read only the Sunday paper and frequently little more than the comics. They definitely have their issues as well, which I’m commenting on (in hopefully a reasonably lighthearted way) in my own blog. See http://spinningclay.blogspot.com/2005/02/sunday-funnies-awards.html for my first posting.

    RalphW (7c7a7a)

  80. Weekend notes *
    Let the Oscar speeches begin. Updated from time to time, newest at the bottom: Sharon Waxman: Jon Friedman at CBS Marketwatch participates in the Sharon Waxman book tour. Interview excerpt: “‘This week has been IN-sane,’ she said with a weary laugh….

    L.A. Observed (ccf68e)

  81. I read the Times daily online from here in Iraq (well, when I can get to a computer), to learn what is going on back home. I am very interested in local issues, especially law enforcement issues, and the Times is the only source that covers them comprehensively. Unfortunately, it is a very hard read because I have to actively filter the information the Times “reports” in order to get around their unconscionable bias. For instance, the killing of an “unarmed teenager” like Devin Brown, while tragic, is not something the Times is capable of reporting in context. I firmly believe that much of the racial tension in LA exists because the Times gives every possible instance of racism a thorough examination that assumes some vast conspiratorial wrong was uncovered. Unfortunatel, they carry enough sway that that idiocy like the new LAPD use of force policy is passed.

    Hey, that was a mortar! Better go!

    Robet Parry (051b36)

  82. Besides their obvious bias, their reporters cannot write, and their editors cannot edit. My grandchildren can rite better. HA

    L. VonMieses

    Ruritania Militia Member (86bf57)

  83. I read it almost every weekday. Why? I live in San Francisco. I grew up in Southern California. I watch the Lakers & Dodgers (thanks DirectTV). I haven’t found a better source for online LA sports writing (although DodgerThoughts.com is good). Before I moved here I was a Herald Ex subscribed for it’s last few years of existence. Even in the 80s I was tired of the LA Time’s staid pomposity.

    Calvinist (ffefb7)

  84. I still subscribe, largely due to the absence of any alternative that takes longer than a few minutes to read. I still believe many of the sportswriters (not Simers, though) can write and are knowledgeable in their field (no bad pun intended).
    Perhaps the most unfortunate problem with the Times is that virtually every section now contains some “personality” (Brownstein, Hitzlik, Lopez) passing off what belongs on the editorial page as a news commentary or analysis. I’d reckon (from reading many of the letters to the editor) quite a few readers don’t realize the difference between reporting and editorializing.
    The icing on the cake is the regular appearance of Scheer every Tuesday. I must admit that I turn to his column every week, drawn to his ignorant rantings like freeway commuters to a multi vehicle accident on the 405. My reading of Scheer is a game. I try to find all the factual errors in each column (I gave up counting the errors in rhetoric or logic a long time ago. That ceased to be challenging).
    It’s regrettable. The Times has a virtual lock on readership in LA, and it doesn’t need to be so biased in order to keep readership up (in fact it looks like its bias is backfiring, given the declining subscriber base).

    Kyle (dca2a1)

  85. I don’t live in SoCal, and I rarely read the LA Times on-line. Why? Unapologetic bias in the stories and the stories they choose to cover, plus appallingly lazy reporting. Little or no research, or scratching beneath the surface, plus news “analysis” pieces that belong in an editorial. Hey! This sounds like the Washington Post, too.

    kimberley (0d13af)

  86. Three reasons to boycott the LA Times, just off the top of my head: Their last-ditch fishing expedition against Arnold (as described by Jill Stewart). Their editor’s mandate that expert sources cited in stories had to be diverse, regardless of expertise. And the ever inexcusable, invariably treasonous blowhard known as Robert Scheer.

    Ned Rice (63dcf9)

  87. I was a subscriber for 40 years. I quit in the runup to the Iraq War, fed up with the Scheer jihad. I subscribed again last fall when they were giving the paper away for a dollar a week. Besides, it was football season. I quit again in late January when I decided I just didn’t want it in my house. This followed the Condaleeza Rice hearings after Barbara Boxer made a fool of herself yet the Times printed nothing but praise for her ranting. And football season was over.

    Mike K (3359a9)

  88. It’s the only game in town.

    Anonymous (2ccfb4)

  89. Sadly, I subscribe to the LA Times, and this morning again came very close to cancelling my subscription after reading the front page story about Hezbollah being a legitimate “opposition party”.

    I again wrote a letter to them in protest, and of course I am expecting back a vehement denial of any bias in their reporting, as they have done in response to my previous tow letters.

    The only reason I keep subscribing is that I don’t have a good alternative. The other local paper is “too” local, and other papers don’t cover my local news.

    I don’t mind the editors having opinions contrary to my own; they are certainly entitled to their personla views. But keep those views on the op-ed pages, and leave it out of the “news” portions of the paper.

    I am very confident that if someone started a rival newpaper in Los Angeles that just reported the news without the bias, the LA Times would go belly-up quickly.

    Mike Moran
    Torrance, CA

    Mike Moran (b34620)

  90. I don’t subscribe. The articles are of low quality and there isn’t enough fact checking going on becasue fictions are regularly reported as fact.

    Jon Dewey (283c64)

  91. Angry, unhappy and downright hateful people are sort of interesting if they are your friends and you are in your teens and twenties.

    But those traits in a well-paid and middle-aged newspaper columnist is just a turn off. I prefer someone who occasionally offer a solution to perceived problems not just droning on and on wiht no end in sight.

    The last straw for me was Carlson comparing the new Pope to Tom Delay! I may be a fallen Catholic but that was just without any logic so I chalked it up an your paper to her disgusting and doctrinaire worldview.

    AJ Lynch (127ca7)

  92. I don’t read this paper because it is not worth my time or money.

    r a benfield (b600f9)

  93. I don’t subscribe. I wish that I did so I could cancel my subscription!! The opinions and reporting of the Times is so liberal and one sided it makes me sick. I would not line the floor of my bird cage with the paper.

    LAR (dba6de)

  94. I am retiring from 21 years in the Army ( most Guard/Reserve, lots of Active duty time.) I lived through the Cold War, served in Bosnia, and went to Iraq as a contractor. The LA Times has represented none of these historical events correctly, and I was there to see them. Robert Scheer is a unreconstructed communist, and he is who the editorial staff seems to rely on for direction.

    It will be a cold day in hell before I spend a dime to purchase a copy of the LA Times again.

    Greg (fc4e49)

  95. Let me add my voice to the complaints: sometime during the late 70s the LAT became infatuated with the culture wars and chose sides. Increasingly, in the pages of the Times, I found myself described as the enemy. It’s certainly their choice, but it seems foolish, to me at least, to demonize a signifigant portion of your market and then complain when subscriptions begin to wane. With the blinkered coverage of the Iraq War and the agenda-driven “journalism” in full roar during the gubernatorial and presidential elections I sadly gave up on the LAT. Fortunately, the web has largely supplanted my news needs. Newspaperwise, I now comfort myself with the Wall Street Journal, the Financial Times, and the New York Times (largely unread–and next to go).

    Brent (b08984)

  96. What can I write that hasn’t already been written about the Socialist Times? The “news” section is virtually indistinguishable from the opinion section and it’s always blatantly biased against gun ownership. My last straw 17 years ago was the constant willful deceit any time they covered crime issues. The always did (and still do) their best to demonize guns and gun owners. When I was living in LA County, I went out of my way and paid extra to get The Orange County Register. I take every opportunity to dissuade everyone I know from subscribing to that liberal rag.

    Richard Yee (7a8c91)

  97. It’s all pretty much been said. The LATs is essentially an organ of the DNC. It’s no secret. Let them support it financially, I won’t.

    kjo (999060)

  98. I cancelled because of the biased election coverage of 2004 and that insane puff-piece on how great things were in North Korea (the one where the NK agent/businessman was quoted uncritically)

    Arthur Kimes (df48e1)

  99. I dont read the LA TIMES because of the blatant left wing bias.

    Saying your newspaper isnt bias is like having the Washington monument in the front yard and wondering why folks stare at your house as they go by.

    Billy bob (c9906e)

  100. I stopped home delivery of the LAT back in 1999 or 2000 (I don’t remember precisely when) because I found that it was just piling up, unread, and getting in the way. In fact, we still have part of a stack of unread issues from 1999 that we use to line the birdcages of our four parrots (no kidding).

    The paper simply made me mad every time I picked it up. No matter the issue, the Times managed to get it wrong, overlooking obvious points and trumpeting minor irrelevancies as major revelations. It wasn’t just hte bias — which was there — it was the ineptitude. The reporters simply lacked the background, education, and intellectual ability to cope with the material they purported to cover. It made we wonder how some of them had managed to get past 7th grade.

    The greatest irony from this is that I was not even paying for this subscription — my parents had decided to transfer their subscription to me (from when they had lived in southern California), and I discovered that they had just kept on paying the bill. (I had expected their existing subscription to run out.) You know it’s bad when I cancel a subscription that costs me nothing.

    I admit I never read the op-ed content in the L.A. Times — it just made me angry, with its shrill and mindless left-liberal diatribes on every predictable left-liberal subject.

    Overall, I think the Times’s problem was one of quality. It was pretending to be a major newspaper without having the bench strength to live up to that billing.

    Voiceguy in L.A. (19919a)

  101. Letā€™s see what John Carroll has provided to the Times readers. A couple that come to mind:

    1. A extended and lurid hit piece on candidate Schwarzenegger intimating heā€™s a racist, cheated to gain his bodybuilding championship, engaged in drug use, group sex, interracial sex, is homophobic but also possibly gay, abuses steroids, ā€¦.

    2.Extended follow up articles about unsubstantiated abuses of women and possible nazi past just before the election.

    3.On the day of Gov. Schwarzenegger victory, allows Steve Lopezā€™s grossly offensive Gropenfuer column to run.

    4.Allows Robert Scheerā€™s weekly droppings of effluvia on the Op/Ed pages. Although this one truly puzzles me. I suspect that Scheer is actually a piece of software that trolls the net for anti-Bush articles and auto-generates a weekly rant. The other explanation is that he is in fact a real person who has taken up residence at the Times since loosing his situation as Ted Kaczynskiā€™s ghost writer.

    John Carrollā€™s anti-Fox news, anti-blogger, pseudo-journalist screed clearly showed it was past time for him to be retired. Itā€™s rather poignant that a guy reaches the summit of his profession and doesnā€™t recognize the fundamental restructuring taking place beneath him. What does that say about him as a newsman?

    I truly want to be a subscriber again, but not until the LA Times ceases being the Democratic Party newsletter. Just do intelligent investigative journalism, ask the obvious follow up questions, get the facts strait, and loose the slant. Until then, my wallet stays closed.

    TakeFive (8be945)

  102. I read the LA Times on line only to see if my daughter who is an intern at the paper has a story.

    A Proud Dad (b79152)

  103. The LA TImes does a bang up job of covering state issues, provided you want only half the story. It’s almost like they’re rooting for the home team, but the home team’s a loser. Now that football has left Los Angeles, their sports coverage is much more even-handed.

    Maybe more people would read the LA Times if they stopped treating the Sacramento “Democrats” like the home team…

    Jim D. (84bb39)

  104. Grew up reading the Times and from high school on knew the reporting had a liberal bent. We even called it the Communist Worker Party Daily. Continued subscribing until the beginning of the Iraq war. I could no longer take the obvious bias in the reporting and cancelled my long time 30 year subscription.

    John Nelson (6809c8)

  105. I still subscribe to the Times, not because I yearn for their reporting or accuracy, but because I’ve been reading it for years, but because there’s still a small chance of getting useful information out of it. In fact, I won’t even say it’s a small chance, there’s still a chance. When reading the time, it’s not a matter of taking what they say at face value, it’s a matter of being able to remove the blatant liberal bias, and read between the lines.

    The Times building was bombed in the early 1900’s by socialists who hated the fact that the times was a conservative outlet. The ALF-CIO commended and awarded the bombers, who they claimed to have stood-up for the rights of workers. One hundred years later, the Times has become the thing they hated and stood up against — an outlet for socialist group-think.

    Luckily, the Times is not a political organization, and it only takes one great leader to bring them to the center of the road. I hang onto my subscription, waiting for that day, but will not hesitate to cancel it if the Times praises Castro or uses Che Guevara’s face as the stamp on their letterhead.

    Nick @ HBR (60cd9b)

  106. I do not take the LA Times seriously as a news purveyer and have not for years. The Times is predictable in its leftist slant. It is sloppy in its reporting and I do not think it is careful to print the truth. I think it knowingly prints falsehoods in service of its point of view.

    SJM Daniels (068324)

  107. I cancelled my subscription because I was becoming tired of the paper’s leftist slant.

    Jerry Cox, M.D.

    jerry Cox (a2603a)

  108. The L.A. Times has come to my household for as long as I can remember. I and other family members have had their favorite sections, but now I have little use for it except on Sunday. Why Sunday? Coupons, of course!

    The typestyle of the paper is an abomination. You can never be sure of where to turn to read the rest of the story, because digits are so difficult to read. Time and time again, I turn to page 18, when the article is continued on page 16, etc.

    It’s a liberal paper – no doubt – but so what? It has been for about fifty years. If you are a discerning reader, you simply filter out the slant and get the meat in the news reporting. As for culture, it’s 100% drivel, so I just ignore all the entertainment and arts stuff.

    I used to look forward to the comics section, but it has deterioated badly. It’s not all the paper’s fault, as some good strips – like Calvin and Hobbes have ended. However, the Times does seem to go out of its way to print insipid comic. A classic example is Bizarro – I always wondered what the guy who does this has on the publisher.

    The “TV Times” section is pathetic. It actually skips listings for the midnight to 7 AM period entirely!

    I’m not that big of a sports fan, so don’t pay much attention to the section. Simers is funny about 5% of the time. As long as they have some college football reporting, I’ll look at it.

    The Opinion section was mildy interesting. It has undergone several changes and just been renamed Current. The silly cartoons are just that.

    cc (040fa5)

  109. Why have I stopped reading the Times? Well, there are several reasons, but the biggest two are the in-your-face leftist tone in every article, and the utter lack of balance. I am also dismayed by their placing the cartoons (of which perhaps three are now aimed at and appropriate for children, but they’re going to read them anyway) in the same section with entertainment news, wherein lots of sexual content appears. Why does the Times feel it is appropriate to run these articles just a few pages from the comics?

    It also seems the Times is behind the times. I can get news faster and more easily (and free) from various websites than I can from a dead tree.

    I used to have a subscription. I cancelled for lack of interest. Mind you, this was four or five years ago, not just a couple months back. It was before all the anti-Bush hysteria and the “whatever it takes” mentality took root. It cost too much for what I wanted. And what I wanted was the cartoons and the food section on Wednesday.

    The cartoons I can get online, and the food section…well, it’s been in a state of decline for a while now.

    What bugs me about the paper? Its big media mentality, that smug, self-satisfied smirk in every article that says, “We’ll tell you what’s news, and you’ll LIKE it!”

    What do I like about the Times? Well, the paper works great with my grill to start fires.

    Bruce Anderson (ef3930)

  110. Here’s my reason for cancelling my subscription. The letter was sent in 2003.

    I have been a subscriber to the Los Angeles Times since I graduated from UCLA Law School in 1962. This included periods of times when I lived in San Diego, Orange County, and now more recently in the Coachella Valley.

    Although I have often disagreed with the content of the Times’ editorials and the columns on the op/ed page, the news coverage was superior to anything else available and I had no objection to editorial content on the op/ed pages. I don’t even object to Steve Lopez’ silly ramblings. But the Times’ editorial philosophy is no longer confined to the Editorial page and its columnists. It permeates the news pages and even, for that matter, the Calendar section (the “speedo” article and picture of Arnold Sshwarzenegger).

    The recent attacks on Arnold Schwarzenegger transcend any fair standard of objective journalism. Such attacks are blatantly wrong, morally reprehensible, and fundamentally dishonest. For example, the placement of the subhead “The governor says allegations of sexual misconduct and admiration for Hitler, if true, cast doubt on his fitness to run the state” in the upper right hand corner of the front page of the Saturday edition of the Times was intended to convey the impression that Schwarzenegger was an admirer of Hitler. This headline was placed there with the deliberate intent to deceive and the qualifier “if true” is inexcusable when the Times knew that the allegation was not true from its own story buried on page 22 of the same edition.

    Womanizing did not deter the Times from its endorsement of Bill Clinton when confronted with Juanita Broderickā€™s allegations of actual rape while Mr. Clinton was serving the State of Arkansas in an official capacity, nor was the Timesā€™ deterred in endorsing Mr. Clinton following Kathryn Willey’s allegations of his sexual misconduct in the Oval Office following the death of her husband. These were not allegations of consensual sex, nor did Ms Broderick or Ms. Willey refuse to be identified.

    The power and prestige of The Times’ should be used fairly, wisely and honestly. Instead, the opposite is true, and the Timesā€™ presentation with respect to Arnold Schwarzenegger is as corrupt as that of the administration of Gray Davis as reflected in “Davis Rapidly Fills Variety of State Positions” “buried” on page 35 of today’s edition of the Times.

    I cannot tolerate such deceit and dishonesty. Please cancel my subscription effective immediately, and credit my account for any balance due me.

    Larry Bishop (3f77b9)

  111. I first subscribed to the LA Times while in college (1988) & during the fall & transformation of the former Soviet Union. Living in San Diego, I found that LA Times provided more information & can honestly say that the coverage seemed fairly objective. Around the mid-90’s, I noticed that the articles began to become less objective or fact based, & more subjective. Opinions were placed in the middle of an article, not the Op/Ed section. Needless to say, the paper’s stance on Prop 187, illegal aliens’ drivers license, immigration in general & not to mention last minute hatchet job of & the treatment of Governor Schwarzenegger let me to not only cancel, my subscription but I question everyone I see reading the rag & let them know about the mistruths & total partisan swing (LA Times has never endorsed a non-Democrat Presidential candidate). For the record, I am an independent voter & generally relied on newspapers to help keep me informed. Thank God for the Internet, I no longer subjected to a one-sided argument & can seek both sides of any issue w/o a partisan agenda behind it.

    Porter Seibert (a853bd)

  112. 1. Wouldn’t waste my time reading the LA Times.
    2. A loooong time ago I subscribed to the LA Times and the OC Register as I live in Orange County, CA. Have cancelled both subscriptions because of the typical liberal MSM reporting. Thank God for the Internet and Fox News (most of the time)-my newspapers of choice.
    3.The reporting just makes me mad…their biased use of pictures, headlines, editorials, and articles. They can’t be trusted to report the facts. Why anyone with conservative views who want the truth in reporting would subscribe to them is beyond me. It’s like sending a check to the DNC.

    Linda Shown (98e9bc)

  113. I cancelled the L.A. Times after several hit pieces on Arnold. The L.A. Times is so left wing biased. They were OPENLY pimping for Gray Davis. It made me sick…they will NEVER get my $$ again. I tell them that in FULL every time they call & ask me to take it back.

    karen goedecke (85c25e)

  114. I have lived in LA for 10 years and I have never read the LA Times. The writing is on a par with “Dick & Jane” and so biased toward the left that I can’t deal with it.

    Michelle Evans (fb9ad7)

  115. Sir,
    I read LATimes online only. I know that it is an excellent source of leftist views and journalistic bias toward these views. I would never pay a penny for it for these reasons. I rarely purchase my local St. Pete Times (NYTimes?) because of this.
    Sincerely,
    Kevin Crowley

    Kevin Crowley (331d9a)

  116. I don’t read the LAT, the NYT, WaPo, or any of the major newspapers any more. The “reporting” is laughable with too many anonymous sources, blatant falsehoods, attacks on our military, attacks on our President, etc. In a time of war and terror attacks, America needs to be pulling together. The major media only want to pull us down.

    Pat Adkins (01e5dd)

  117. Dear Mr. Carrol, I am writing to inform you that i canceled my subscription to the L.A. Times solely because of content. No other reason. Eveyone I know who has canceled a subscription to your paper recently (and there are quite a few) did so because of complaints about content. The fact that you continue to deny this is probably one of the main reasons that you are leaving and definitely the main reason that circulation is still declining. Best of luck to you in any future endeavors.
    Sincerely,
    Allen Covert

    Allen Covert (575339)

  118. We continue to call the LA Times subscription dept. in an attempt to cancel our subscription, however, the papers keep coming and the bills follow. Now I see why there is this desperate attempt to keep subscribers at any cost. Two reasons for our cancellation- the content and why pay of a paper I can go online and read for free?

    Kim Rondon (08f99c)

  119. The L. A. Times used to be my newspaper. Twenty years in L.A. has given me plenty of time to conclude that when I want a leftist point of view, The Times is sure to provide one. Not that there isn’t the occasional worthwhile editorial but there just isn’t enough balance to make The Times worth reading regularly.

    Worse there is rampant editorializing in what appears to be news reporting. A simple twist of words is all it takes and The Times staff has proven to be most adept at such subterfuge. Thank you but I prefer my news straight up with the editorial chaser correctly place on the Op/Ed page.

    My son used to read the sports section on line but became disgusted with the negative reporting. Specifically he found that when the Dodgers were doing well, no comments were made about them but when they were doing poorly, Times writers were quick to attack them. He also found poor depth of knowledge in the reporting and has since found better sources of information and opinions.

    At the ripe, old age of sixteen, my son figured out The Times so is it any wonder scores of adults have reached the same conclusion?

    Meg Maurer (161a28)

  120. I recently moved from Orange County to the Phoenix area; I had cancelled my subscription to the LA Times prior to moving due to their liberal bias but boy did I jump from the fire into the frying pan. The Phoenix newspaper, The Arizona Republic, is even worse (I know, the Times also owns the Republic). At least the Times had some news articles in the paper, here it’s all left, left and more left bias.

    Roger H Baum (8bdeab)

  121. I read the LA Times daily since moving here 7 years ago. I figured it was almost as good as the Washington Post. After 9-11 my politics changed and I didn’t like the Time’s liberal/left stance on security issues. Their attacks on Arnold really pissed me off, especially when I read they covered up Gray Davis’ history of verbal and physical abuse against his own staff. You couldn’t get me to read the LA Times now. I get all my news on the internet now.

    Emerson (aea7c6)

  122. Not just the liberal slant of the LA Times, but Carroll’s comments himself. And I believe it’s calculated and knowing. He mirrors the popular views among his highest profile readers. I think he believes impartiality is a low priority for in a city like Los Angeles. I don’t think intelligent people could reasonably believe the Times ‘content’ is unbiased. He justifies his ‘unbiased content’ only because it’s slightly to the right of radical leftists ideology. I was apalled at the visibly partisan content. But, I cancelled my subscription due to numerous uncorrected errors. It’s one thing to lean to the left, and quite another to blatantly misrepresent facts to further an agenda.

    jonkendall (ebe212)

  123. LA Times has never endorsed a non-Democrat Presidential candidate

    I think Nixon was the last candidate they endorsed. No joke.

    Patterico (3606ad)

  124. I cancelled my subscription because I felt you distorted the news to fit a political agenda. Opinion is fine but not in the news. Your bias to the left and particularly against Bush was so obvious that i could not trust your reporting. More than that i feel you have demeaned the role of news reporting and have become more of a danger to the public thru slanted and distorting reporting. An ill-informed populace is a danger to the country.

    rosatski (817d33)

  125. Why would anyone read the Los Angeles Times,such a biased, fact-challenged Democratic Party organ, when they have access to the Orange County Register. Southern Californians are lucky. In Northern California, the San Francisco Chronicle, as far left as the Los Angeles Times, is considered right wing compared to its competitors, and compared to the policics of the San Francisco-Oakland-Berkeley Peoples’ Collectives. Fortunately they can’t put a left-wing uber-editor on the Internet, like they have on all of our newspapers.

    Major Michael Combs (230496)

  126. I grew up reading the Los Angeles Times. When my husband and I got married in 1988, we subscribed for daily delivery. We cancelled the subscription in disgust seven or eight years ago — we could not take the liberal editorializing of news stories, starting with the headlines on page one.

    Ann (887fb0)

  127. We were long-time subscribers of the LA Times from back to the Chandler proprietorship years.

    Thereafter, however, the paper’s increasingly leftist, anti-American, idiotarian progressivist editorial and reportorial bias got my husband near-upchucking his breakfast every morning that he opened the LA Times. Unpardonably nasty way to start one’s day.

    So we were among the 10,000+ who cancelled their subscriptions in great bile over the contemptibly vicious politickings of this sorry rag during the last round of California elections….. so bad they singlehandedly caused us to change our long-time party affiliation.

    Now, we not only refuse to be seduced by marketing blandishments and discount offers, but even the driveway freebies never get to cross our threshhold but hit the outside bin pronto!

    CeeCee (999629)

  128. I have read newspapers since age of four with the Detroit Free Press. Have to read the local paper to feel connected and aware, so I haven’t cancelled. The LA Times enrages me. There is no way to know what is real. You wind up angry everyday. The columns? What can be the excuse for Robert Sheer or Margaret Carlson? I remember James Reston, Arthur Krock from the NYTimes. Most of the LATimes regulars sound like rabid dogs. What about critics? I work in the art field. The politically correct nonsense written by Christopher Knight drives me totally insane. A true moron and propagandist. They seem to do movies well though. I must read it, but I hate it. Obviously some deep psychological conflict.

    ronald l winokur (632f17)

  129. I lived in LA for a while and came to care about the place, so I read the LA Times online to keep up with the basics BUT I would never pay a dime for it! The bias is so leftist and so blatant you’d think even yellow-dog democrats would worry about balance and fairness. The market for news is now multi-media and borderless. The LA Times is history unless they forget advocacy and return to impartial REPORTING.

    Michele Delo (18a9aa)

  130. The LA Times should
    go to this link

    http://www.thatliberalmedia.com/

    and read the column titled Bogus Document controversy begins and maybe you will see why folks dont read your rag anymore. Try ummm reporting the news.

    Billy bob (c9906e)

  131. I am writing to say that I cancelled my subscription to the LA Times because of content, and content only. The paper’s liberal bias is annoying and condescending. Also, the paper’s “if it bleeds, it reads” philosophy providing the reader with a steady diet of murder and torture and rape of children stories is unbearable; this is not news, but rubbernecking. I grew up in LA and my parents started each morning with the LA Times over breakfast. My husband and I now start each morning with the Wall Street Journal over breakfast. It is a much better paper.

    Patty (90131f)

  132. I hate the L.A. times. With a disgorged passion. I can’t stand their telemarketing tactics. They have a very dishonest way of trying to maintain subscriptions. Once you subscribe, they don’t stop until you cancel. They never call, as long as you’re a subscriber. Once you call them during THEIR business hours, they start to hound you with THEIR calls. I send them as much rubbish in the mail as I can whenever they send me any correspondence that has a postage-paid envelope. By the way, I think Republicans are evil, but these L.A. times pricks don’t like to stay behind either.

    Bob Woodward (682559)

  133. The Los Angeles Times fails to look deeply into some subjects, relying on a “he said; she said” sort of reporting. For example: Water fluoridation – there’s just one side. The side of science. Modern science shows us how fluoridation (adding fluoride chemicals into drinking water to prevence cavities) is ineffective, harmful and a waste of money.

    However, dentistry hasn’t gotten the memo yet. So the LA Times reports what any old dentist has to say on the subject – whether he/she has reviewed the evidence or not.

    Oh yeah, if this is news to you, for more info:

    New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, Inc.
    http://www.orgsites.com/ny/nyscof

    Fluoridation News Releases
    http://tinyurl.com/6kqtu

    Fluoride News Tracker
    http://www.fluoridenews.blogspot.com/

    Fluoride Action Network
    http://www.FluorideAction.Net

    nyscof (9128ef)

  134. Anti-fluoridationist SPAM

    Quack Quack Quack

    Flap

    Flap (fe6bfb)

  135. I rest my case. “Flap” is a dentist

    nyscof (a90377)

  136. And you are a spamming QUACK!

    Quack Quack……

    Flap (54ecdd)

  137. When I took Journalism at the university level during the late ’70s-early ’80s, there were always two or three “all flash and no substance” students who suceeded there by kissing up to the faculty advisors of the student newspaper.

    The rest of us, who were really dedicated to the craft, bounced around after graduation to various alternative newspapers, until we wound up happily doing our own thing on the internet.

    And what became of the butt-kissers? Naturally they went straight from graduation to papers including the L.A. Times.

    As a flaming liberal myself, I usually welcome a little libby slant in what is largely a Republican-controlled conservative national media. But it’s just that papers like the Times do it so amateurishly, they make even people like ME cringe!

    Ed Gauthier (c59346)

  138. I have received the Los Angeles Times for many years. I have cancelled my subsciption, not because of it’s content or lack thereof, becuase of their relentless telemarketing practices. Calls at all hours of the day and night. Calls on the weekend start at 8am and rarely cease. I guess the figure your are up at the crack of dawn reading the Times so….why not call and share in your enjoyment! Buy the Times at a news stand if you want to maintain your privacy and dodge the early morning and late night calls soliciting those great deals you just cant live without. On the other hand, if you would like to ditch the old alarm clock on the weekends, the Times is a great alternative.

    Christopher Walker (d14f04)

  139. Republican-controlled conservative national media ?

    Ed Gauthier, dude, once you come down from whatever you’re smoking, you might realize how silly a statement that is.

    Desert Rat (ee9fe2)

  140. Endless trouble with their circulation department. Apparently they have contracted this service out, resulting in a string of broken ‘special’ agreements and telemarketing calls. Surprisingly amateurish tactics, something I’d expect from from a boiler room telemarketing operation.
    Even their own website does not disclose the amount you will be billed prior to committing to buy, but the fine print indicates that they will bill your credit card on a recurring basis.
    I’d love to take the LA Times but I have had enough of their penny-ante skulduggery and low-brow telemarketing. They should be ashamed of their behavior.

    A former LA Times Subscriber (74c6b6)

  141. Desert Rat, you claim that my observing that the news media is controlled by conservatives is a “silly statement” made by someone smoking dope?

    Well, I don’t smoke or drink, but I have to wonder about you. Somehow Fox, CNN, AP and most major newspapers are instead all “liberals” to you? That’s got to be the dumbest thing I’ve heard in years!

    Ed Gauthier (285ac3)

  142. Young Girls Young Teens Angus Young…

    I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view…

    Young Girls Young Teens Angus Young (08fc82)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1336 secs.