Comments on: More Predictable Negativity on the Budget from the L.A. Times

By: Bostonian

Bostonian — Thu, 14 Jul 2005 12:50:35 +0000

It should be abundantly clear that the LAT has no interest in the truth. It cares only about its “message.”

By: Kevin Murphy

Kevin Murphy — Thu, 14 Jul 2005 03:09:56 +0000

The Times could well have written “Schwarzenegger cut dozens of items totaling only $190 million to dismay of taxpayers who had hoped for savings of 20 times that. State Senator McClintock noted that $190 million was ‘a mere six dollars for each Californian — barely enough money for lunch. If I’d been elected, I’d need several of those blue pencil things before I was done.’”

or some such…

By: Dean Esmay

Dean Esmay — Thu, 14 Jul 2005 01:43:55 +0000

If newspapers were smart they’d use bloggers as their fact-checkers, and be happy about it.

They aren’t very smart–yet.

By: spwb

spwb — Wed, 13 Jul 2005 19:30:13 +0000

good stuff, especially in lihgt of the following ethics guidelines of the Times “ethics code” put out by John Carrlo today. HT: Instagodfather:

A fair-minded reader of Times news coverage should not be able to discern the private opinions of those who contributed to that coverage, or to infer that the newspaper is promoting any agenda. A crucial goal of our news and feature reporting – apart from editorials, columns, criticism and other content that is expressly opinionated – is to be nonideological. This is a tall order. It requires us to recognize our own biases and stand apart from them. It also requires us to examine the ideological environment in which we work, for the biases of our sources, our colleagues and our communities can distort our sense of objectivity…
People who will be shown in an adverse light in an article must be given a meaningful opportunity to defend themselves.

So basically the arnold budget article is a 1000% contradiction of these guidleines. Kewl.

By: Shredstar

Shredstar — Wed, 13 Jul 2005 04:56:07 +0000

From the fine dweintraub blog:
“Schwarzenegger’s most interesting veto was of $6.1 million to preserve 114 positions in the office of State Publishing, a move made by Democrats to reduce the state’s use of private contract printers.”

That particular boondoggle really pissed me off. I have some friends who were in the printing business, and here the State is overpaying by over six buttloads of money to Socialize the industry. And this is all so these dorks Rudy Bermudez (D-Norwalk) and Joe Dunn (D-Santa Ana) get some of the action.

What does dismay even mean? To the dismay of me, LA Times is not giving me a whole bunch of money.