Patterico's Pontifications

3/10/2009

L.A. Times: We Didn’t Cover the John and Ken Rally Because Those Guys Are Idiots Rallies of 15,000 People Aren’t Newsworthy. Oh REALLY?!

Filed under: Dog Trainer,General — Patterico @ 11:42 pm

Radio personalities John and Ken recently hosted a “taxpayer revolt” in Fullerton with a crowd of between 8,000 and 15,000 — and the L.A. Times wasn’t there to cover it. At the Readers’ Representative blog is a letter that editor David Lauter mass-mailed to “dozens” of readers who had written to complain about the lack of coverage.

Thanks to each of you for writing. I appreciate hearing from all of you — even the ones who called me a moron.

As a counter to the radio station’s claim of 15,000 attendees, Lauter’s letter uncritically repeats the ostensibly more objective estimate given by a Fullerton police sergeant who fixed the number between 3000 and 8000. (Way to nail it down, Sarge!) If the extremely large gap between the extremes of that range suggests to you that the Sergeant may lack expertise in the field of crowd estimation, then congratulations! You’ve just demonstrated more journalistic skepticism than a trained editor at a major national newspaper.

The Times chose the lowest numbers out there; other estimations were much closer to the radio station’s claimed 15,000. According to Jon Fleischman, the Fullerton Police Department estimated the crowd at 15,000. This citizen journalist also reports the number at 15,000. According to the Orange County Register, police estimated the crowd at 8000. (Are these different police?)

You start to get the sense that crowd estimation is not an exact science, don’t you? But you still get the strong sense that there were a lot of people there.

So why not write about it? Lauter says:

Between now and the May 19 election, we plan extensive coverage of both sides of the campaign over the ballot initiatives. We’ll explain the issues, tell readers what both sides are saying, figure out where the money is coming from to pay for the campaigns on both sides and show people what’s at stake. What we’re not likely to do is cover a lot of individual rallies — from either side. That’s not a political thing. We don’t cover a lot of government-worker rallies in favor of tax hikes, either. That doesn’t mean we’re not interested in the issue or that we have any disrespect for the people who attend the rallies (or the people who organize them).

Yuh-huh. I noticed that you didn’t clearly deny that you lack respect for John and Ken. Instead, you just say that readers can’t draw that conclusion based on the paper’s lack of coverage of a rally — because the paper just don’t cover a lot of rallies.

Except:

DOES THE L.A. TIMES COVER RALLIES? YOU BET IT DOES! And they don’t have to have 15,000 people, either — as long as the issue is one near and dear to the hearts of Times editors.

The Times has covered protests and rallies with crowds similar in size to John and Ken’s tax protest. Examples include the teachers’ rally in Pershing Square with a crowd of around 10,000, or an immigrants’ rights march in L.A. with “[n]early 5,000 immigrants and their supporters” — or the immigrants’ rights march with 3000 attendees . . . in Norcross, Georgia.

On the lower end, we saw a story about 50 Teamsters marching into a freight hauler’s office to demand that some truckers be reinstated. Laughably, an entertainment feature called the “Envelope” told us the critical news that “[m]ore than a dozen” Jews for Peace demonstrated outside the federal building in Westwood, seeking more humanitarian aid for Gaza.

L.A. Times blogs have covered things as crucially important as PETA’s rally comparing a kennel club to the KKK, and a vigil protesting an Israeli dance troupe.

SO WHAT’S REALLY GOING ON? An intrepid reader sheds considerable light on the subject. She wrote Lauter and got a . . . somewhat different response. One that denigrated the rally as a “promotional event[] for radio personalities.” The letter, which begins with the same bland boilerplate as the letter quoted above, ends this way:

But while the issues involved are important, rallies by themselves are seldom newsworthy. In an area the size of southern California , there’s a rally, demonstration or march practically every week somewhere, particularly when a political campaign is under way. We’ll make sure that all sides in the debate get covered fairly, but I think there are better ways to do that than by covering promotional events for radio personalities.

That almost suggests disdain for these particular radio personalities. But surely such an attitude can’t prevail at a bastion of objectivity such as the L.A. Times?

Well, the L.A. Times‘s James Rainey recently wrote a column dripping with contempt for John and Ken, whom he dismissively termed “KenJohn” and described as people who “seem to like their answers without much nuance.”

Rainey, of course, is a columnist. His type of snooty attitude could never infuse the decisions made by news editors. They have objective reasons to refuse to cover a tax protest of 8000 – 15,000 people while giving space to PETA lunatics, 50 Teamsters, and a baker’s dozen of Jews for Gazan Terrorism.

Yes, I’m joking. Thanks for asking.

Anyone who doubts that the editors of the L.A. Times lack respect for John and Ken, raise your hand.

Anyone who doubts that the contempt editors feel for John and Ken influenced their decision not to cover the rally, raise your hand.

I see no hands.

UPDATE: Thanks to Michelle Malkin for the link. Also, I should have mentioned in the post that that there were a couple of dismissive lines on the rally in one of the paper’s blogs, suggesting the rally might be merely a “radio stunt.” But it was never mentioned in the print edition.

Readers have even more examples of rallies the paper did cover in the comments.

267 Responses to “L.A. Times: We Didn’t Cover the John and Ken Rally Because Those Guys Are Idiots Rallies of 15,000 People Aren’t Newsworthy. Oh REALLY?!”

  1. I can’t help but be sarcastic and say that the one rally I hope to see covered in the future is one involving unemployed reporters and editors of the LA Times protesting the loss of their pension plans and the impending closure of their workplace.

    Mark (411533)

  2. It was in Fullerton.

    Hax Vobiscum (23258e)

  3. It was in Fullerton.

    Funny, my post shows no evidence that I was aware of that. Except for the several times I mentioned it.

    So?

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  4. by the way, I’ve been searching for WordPress plugins that will enable commenters to mark other commenters with an “ignore” tag.

    For now, we’ll just have to manually scroll over certain comments.

    steve miller (c76b20)

  5. It is written – Hope and change forbids speaking truth to power.

    Perfect Sense (0922fa)

  6. Here’s what I found so far
    http://wordpress.org/extend/plugins/search.php?q=star+rating

    There are some plug ins that let users “rate” a post. If we can tie that in with a feature that says “don’t show posts with a score less than ” we probably have it made.

    steve miller (c76b20)

  7. Fullerton is not exactly in the heart of L.A. Times coverage zone, as you may know.

    I certainly agree that they should have covered it, though. Even if it’s only 3,000 people, a nice photo and a short write up guarantees readership the next day like just about nothing else.

    Having said that, I see no reason to believe there was some sort of ideological blind spot behind it. Moreover, I see nothing wrong with holding Ken and John in disdain, though it is kind of dumb to let that pull you away from a story that virtually guarantees readership…

    Hax Vobiscum (23258e)

  8. Meh. Rating a post isn’t what we want. We want to rate a comment.

    Still looking.

    steve miller (c76b20)

  9. This might be useful:
    http://wordpress.org/extend/plugins/gd-star-rating/

    lets users rate other users’ comments. It would be easy to simply scroll over weak-minded commenters.

    steve miller (c76b20)

  10. But even with that, the larger issue of the LAT ignoring inconvenient rallies is still there.

    They of course have the right to publish or not publish whatever they want. More power to them.

    What’s dishonest is the talking around the issue. I’d respect them more if they’d say “we don’t like to follow rallies that are for projects against our interests in higher taxes and more government.”

    On the plus side, this kind of dishonesty is directly affecting their credibility and ability to survive. I give them another 2-3 years, tops.

    The Seattle PI may or may not be dead at this point – the news tonight said it was iffy whether a newspaper would be published tomorrow. So score one for the death of a liberal newspaper.

    Today the PI, tomorrow…the LAT. It could happen.

    steve miller (c76b20)

  11. Did the LAT’s rivals cover the rally?

    Hax Vobiscum (23258e)

  12. Fullerton is not exactly in the heart of L.A. Times coverage zone, as you may know.

    They cover Orange County.

    Including Fullerton.

    Lauter doesn’t offer that as an excuse. Why would you?

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  13. I see the same type of miscoverage of events or skewing of events in Seattle papers. A friend of mine died; her funeral was held at a Christian church with a Christian message & ct.

    The local papers and the Seattle Times all mentioned in passing that the service was held at a church (most people know that a church is connected to the Christian faith). These papers quoted things said at the funeral, both from this girl’s writings and from the writings of others about her. The Seattle PI mentioned that a religious service was held, and talked about her as if she simply believed in something, but we don’t know what. Rather than give a picture of who this girl was, the PI made her into something…well, religious, but it might have been that she believed in Zac Ephron for all we know.

    I’m not saying the paper should be an evangelism tool. But I respect the Seattle Times more when they quote what actually happens at an event, not just Christian events, and reports them accurately, vs. the PI which seems afraid to mention anything that would imply that some people believe in things others do not.

    Maybe there’s some special gene in people in Seattle that they can’t bear to read what others think. For me, it makes me very glad the PI is folding, even if I’m sad that some good people will be losing their jobs and their livelihoods.

    steve miller (c76b20)

  14. Apparently they want a scoop on something only if someone else might also run the story.

    If it had been the LAT only and not the WaPo/NYT, we’d never know about Watergate. (I mean, Washington DC is a few miles away from NYC, so why would they cover that story? It was about a bunch of small-time crooks.)

    steve miller (c76b20)

  15. The very fact that a publication supposedly devoted to “who, what, where, how and why” will avoid identifying the racial or ethnic background of a suspect involved in a major crime is Numero Uno and Ground Zero in, or Textbook Example of, how much absurd, neurotic bias can infiltrate the LA Times.

    Mark (411533)

  16. LAT covers Fullerton, but not in the same way they do, say, West LA and Santa Monica or downtown.

    I certainly agree the paper should have covered it, but don’t think it has anything to do with any kind of ideological bias.

    Would be interesting to know whether LAT’s conservative rivals covered the event.

    If you’re going to make LAT’s bias a theme, shouldn’t you have something to compare it with?

    I keep reading here that LAT and other “liberal” papers are getting their comeuppance, when, in reality, virtually all newspapers are facing crisis and the ones that are often labeled “liberal” are outperforming their more conservative rivals by leaps and bounds.

    Hax Vobiscum (2e2a91)

  17. Standing in the street with a sign isn’t a “revolt”.

    ccoffer (0028d0)

  18. Pat, don’t you realize it: it is your fault that The Los Angeles Times didn’t cover the rally. Because you have so tremendously denigrated that fine journalistic establishment, its readership has unjustly declined. Because its readership has unjustly declined, its advertising rates have not been high enough. Because you voted for George Bush, you collapsed the economy, further reducing advertising revenue. Thus, newsroom staff had to be cut, and there simply wasn’t anyone available to cover the rally.

    Admit it! Confess your guilt, and hang your head in shame. :)

    The citizen non-journalist Dana (3e4784)

  19. I also appreciate how the “liberal bias” mythology conflicts with claims about antipathy toward “moral relativism.”

    Only a “moral relativist” or an amoralist can rationally suggest that a newspaper should strive for political balance. Only someone who believes all political ideas, and their moral basis, are equal can logically suggest that a factual newspaper give all political ideas equal prominence.

    Why shouldn’t LAT hold Ken and John in disdain? Just because Ken and John make a popular political statement doesn’t mean that statement deserves some prominence in the newspaper, why would you insist that the LAT has some kind of duty to report the activities of people and or ideas they decide are immoral or irrational or, simply, not fitting.

    It’s clear that many on this blog believe that liberalism is immoral and, more or less, insane. If they were running a newspaper, why would they even consider giving liberal ideas any prominence? The only reasons I can think of are the amoral business view that, as long as it’s popular, it deserves prominence, or the “moral relativist” view that all ideas deserve prominence in the newspaper.

    If Pat were editing a newspaper, why would he feel it necessary to give liberal ideas prominence? More important, how would he decide how much prominence to give them?

    If you publish a newspaper, it’s your resonsibility to enforce a bias that you believe reflects reality in both the physical and moral sense. It’s called news judgment.

    As a matter of sound business practice, almost all newspapers and magazines strive for a political balance that takes in the maximum swath of their target market. Papers like LAT, NYT and the Washington Post are among the most successful at doing this, while more ideological rivals like the Washington Times and New York Post lag because they insist on hewing a political line that doesn’t reflect their reader’s thinking.

    Hax Vobiscum (4012df)

  20. It didn’t fit their meta-narrative.

    Maybe after some more layoffs it will.

    jim2 (6482d8)

  21. Reminds me of a similar incidentseveral years ago in which the San Francisco Chronicle did not cover a pro-Israel rally of 5,000-7,000, although the Chronicle had covered many smaller rallies, including anti-Israel rallies.

    AT least the Chronicle‘s readers’ representative admitted that the paper had screwed up.

    aunursa (2aca7b)

  22. Hax: You’re failing to distinguish between the news section and the editorial/opinion section. The news section is supposed to cover the news, regardless of whether the paper agrees with the people making the news.

    aunursa (2aca7b)

  23. Beverly Hills is not exactly the heart of the LA Times coverage zone, as you may know. It’s 16 whole miles from the LA Times building. And Fullerton is like 22 miles!

    The LA Times: All The News That Happens In Our Lobby, Unless We Like The Story

    Pablo (99243e)

  24. This sort of thing is nothing new. I attended a pro-2nd Amendment rally at the Capitol in Austin, Texas a number of years ago. (Note: Austin is where we Texans keep our liberals; easier to keep an eye on ‘em if they are all in one place.) The only newspaper coverage I could find, in the next day’s Austin American-Statesman, was a two-inch column-filler that estimated the crowd at 200. Problem is, one organization was circulating a petition at the rally and had over 1,500 signatures. That’s 1,500 people logged by name. Add in family members, those who didn’t sign, etc.; my own unscientific estimate was 2,000 in attendance. This lack of coverage was one of the factors that led me to abandon the so-called mainstream media; I’ve not read a newspaper nor watched TV news (except for “live and breaking”, i.e. 9-11) in nearly twenty years.

    cvproj (b1bb16)

  25. Good Ole Hax has his head so far up his socialistic ass that I’m sure he’ll be the next Obama cabinet appointee. Qualifying question numero uno…….has Hax paid his Tax?

    krusher (afa9bb)

  26. Did the LAT’s rivals cover the rally?

    There are two ways of finding an answer:

    1. Read the Orange County Register, which did cover it,
    2. Read Patterico’s post, which mentioned #1.

    beer 'n pretzels (932ce1)

  27. The LA Times believes that the policies of President Obama must be protected from criticism at all costs.

    cyproj – is correct, this is nothing new. I remember a Pro-Life rally I attended years ago that got coverage in the LA Times, but very slanted coverage. I was there to witness the event myself, and after reading the newspapers twisted account, I realize that the LA Times had a left wing bias. I haven’t trusted the paper since then, and that was 1983.

    tyree (926e0a)

  28. And they wonder why they are dying……

    Techie (9c008e)

  29. Fullerton is not exactly in the heart of L.A. Times coverage zone, as you may know.

    Neither is Norcross, GA, as you may know.

    Are you seriously arguing that The Times covering a “rally” of a dozen people in Westwood and ignoring a rally of 8,000 people in Fullerton is due strictly to geography?

    Steverino (69d941)

  30. OC Register had it on their front page, Sunday edition.

    The LA Times didn’t once mention it. Yet yesterday it did give a nice Press Release disused as “News” to the 50 year anniversary march for the Free Tibet movement. The LA Times on Sunday also had a story about a Protest in Oregon, that happened a month ago, in Sunday’s edition, except that Protest was in favor of more taxes and fell in line with the LA Times blind support of Teachers Unions everywhere. Kind of like their coverage of the Teachers Unions (supported by ACORN) ranting yesterday about possible layoffs months from now.

    Last I checked Oregon wasn’t in the LA Times coverage zone, but hey neither is Mexico and protests there are routinely covered.

    As for the crowd estimates, I could say that over 15,000 people showed up, I would estimate that roughly 7000-9000 were at the rally at its peak, but people were coming and going.

    See for yourself.

    gabriel (3b1f6b)

  31. The LA Times has no “Conservative” rivals. Most cities went to one daily paper ages ago, and those papers tend to have a liberal bias.

    tyree (926e0a)

  32. With outstanding coverage like this, no wonder more people than ever are turning to the LA Times for their news and information needs………….

    Oh wait.

    Techie (9c008e)

  33. Haven’t you heard? The government needs higher taxes. Prop. 13 must be repealed. Blah. Blah. Blah. Some mere radio personalities and thousands of taxpayers must not be allowed to challenge the Truth According to the LA Times.

    Get with the program!

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407)

  34. Once again, Hax gets called on his bullshit, and goes mysteriously silent.

    Steverino (69d941)

  35. [...] a big enough demonstrations, what size rallies does the dying Los Angeles Times cover.  Patterico knows. This was written by admin. Posted on Wednesday, March 11, 2009, at 10:21 am. Filed under [...]

    The Farm Report › (0e22df)

  36. FWIW, Norcross, GA is about as far out from Atlanta as Fullerton is out from LA.

    Techie (9c008e)

  37. Hmm – lost a comment somewhere.

    I noted earlier that this rally took place less than 3 miles from the LA Times‘ Fullerton office. Also, it seems that the Angels play in Anaheim…

    carlitos (3f0da9)

  38. gabriel – It’s nice to know they’re still giving out some of that free Tibet. I better get some before they run out. Hopefully the article tells you where you can get it.

    I’m constantly amazed that Hax considers himself on of the “Informed” and he can still put out the inanities he does here. Why is he offended that people say liberalism is a mental disease when he is living proof.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  39. That beer ‘n pretzels comment is pure gold.

    carlitos (3f0da9)

  40. Old Hax Vobiscum can walk on water. Want proof?
    He’s standing in the middle of De Nile.

    Aarggh–sorry folks, but Haxy can bring out some bad tendencies once in a while. I’ve just violated the customary Do Not Feed The Trolls rule.

    Mike Myers (674050)

  41. You may have heard of a similar non – reporting story regarding the “tea party” tax protests that were conducted right outside of the ChiTrib’s lobby here, yet they failed to even mention it. Over 3,000 people reported in attendance, but nary a peep.

    http://www.cdobs.com/archive/our-columns/chicago-tea-party-gets-scrutiny-but-scant-coverage,2965

    Dmac (49b16c)

  42. [...] Because they don’t cover citizen rallies…unless they agree with them. [...]

    Michelle Malkin » L.A. Times: We don’t cover citizen rallies…unless we agree with them (e2f069)

  43. Would anyone else like to join me in asking Hax to tag his comments with his nom de plume at the beginning of the comment ? That makes it easier to skip by. That will do until a device is discovered to automatically tag them. Maybe we could tell him we want it done so we reduce the chance of missing all he has to say.

    Mike K (2cf494)

  44. I still say that the troll needs to apologize for his claim on another thread that people “like the people who post on this blog” are capable of murdering political opponents.

    This from a character who routinely criticizes personal attacks.

    Patterico, you have forced apologies from other posters who have written that kind of hateful nonsense. They could have claimed they were joking, as well.

    On the other hand, I remember his supposed “apology” to Stash.

    We all pretty much know what the character will write. He posts to get people angry.

    But it ain’t my blog. Eventually, he will degrade the quality of the blog sufficiently to merit banning, or enough people will opt out to merit banning. Or, unlikely as it sounds, he could be civil and decent.

    Thus far, he is a partisan hypocrite, who posts to anger others and generally lower the quality of discussion here.

    Hey, I could be wrong. But I have seen his ilk destroy blogs. Hopefully it won’t happen here.

    Eric Blair (8d54e0)

  45. 15,000 + is a fair estimate.

    The venue has had concerts in the past and knows how many people fit in the immediate area.

    The OC Register was there early and probably missed the largest crowds, missed the freeway ramps being shut down due to overwhelming traffic, missed folks having to park a mile away and walk to the event.

    SoCal Tony (fe9019)

  46. Cut the LA Times some slack, they did manage to cover 20 LAUSD teachers having a fit yesterday.

    SoCal Tony (fe9019)

  47. I dunno. HV can make a lot of sense when he does not personalize his ideas.

    nk (31b2d3)

  48. Only someone who believes all political ideas, and their moral basis, are equal can logically suggest that a factual newspaper give all political ideas equal prominence.

    Flaming non sequiter.

    Gerald A (adb85a)

  49. [...] Oh, rally? Posted by Dan Collins @ 7:53 am | Trackback SHARETHIS.addEntry({ title: “With Reference to What [...]

    With Reference to What Jeff Just Said . . . [Dan Collins] (7a2640)

  50. Eric – That just follows with Teh Narrative where anyone that disagrees with them is a racist xenophobic jingoistic imperialistic misogynist homophobic fascist.

    JD (343162)

  51. Gee the Times even covered a ZOO Rally

    L.A. Zoo supporters to rally for elephant exhibit
    9:19 AM | January 26, 2009
    Hundreds of Los Angeles Zoo employees, children and community members, including rock guitarist Slash, are expected today at an 11 a.m. City Hall rally in support of completing the zoo’s Pachyderm Forest

    Dennis D (ae900a)

  52. JD, you are so correct I won’t even denounce you.

    But the hypocrisy and snottiness of that poster is tiresome. Especially because it is just a game.

    And the continuing conceit that the MSM does not have a bias is amazing to me. But then, I am not a reflexive progressive Leftist.

    Eric Blair (8d54e0)

  53. Hax is not only in De Nile, he’s deluded and dead wrong. There’s far more liberal commentary on a regular basis in the Washington Times and N.Y. Post than there is in any of the other papers he cited. Kirsten Powers is a regular in the Post, and left-of-centre views are regularly aired in the WashTimes with far more frequency than right-of-centre views are in the bait wrappers he mentioned.
    Oh, and Hax, [yes, I gotta feed the troll], it’s no coincidence that only the WaPo is not deep in financial doo-doo of the bait wrappers you cited. The NY Post is making money, and the WashTimes, despite its relatively smaller numbers, is also profitable. Can’t say that for the NY Times chain or the LA Times/Chi Tribune bunch, can you?

    either orr (919e95)

  54. either orr,
    To be fair, the WashPost is is better financial shape only because of the money it makes on its Kaplan educational division.

    Donald E. Graham rebranded The Washington Post Co. as an “education and media company” at a meeting with Wall Street analysts and shareholders yesterday, reflecting the rise of Kaplan Inc. within the company and the the decline of its flagship newspaper.

    Kaplan, which The Post Co. purchased in 1984, now accounts for 50 cents of every dollar of company revenue, by far the top earner, according to the third-quarter earnings report released last month.

    Bradley J. Fikes, C. O.R. (a18ddc)

  55. “Maybe we could tell him we want it done so we reduce the chance of missing all he has to say.”

    Mike K – That’s a beautiful suggestion since he’s deluded enough to claim that everyone here is part of his fan club and focused on the merits of what he has to say, rather than realizing people are rolling on the floor laughing over his comments or writhing in agony over his stupidity and bias.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  56. There are sources other than the LAT for comprehensive coverage of the 2009 ballot initiatives:

    California Proposition 1A.

    California 2009 ballot propositions.

    Polycal (d47c5c)

  57. We don’t cover a lot of government-worker rallies in favor of tax hikes, either.

    Just curious what kind of turnout he would expect for a rally in favour of tax hikes.

    Blaise MacLean (445965)

  58. [...] update: The LA Times explanation for the non-coverage is, shall we say, disproven by history? [...]

    Protests spread; national MSM blackout continues « The Political Inquirer (fd0214)

  59. Those business reporter skills from back when continue to serve you well, Bradley. You point out what many people miss which is that when your industry is on the wane the wise owner seeks alternate revenue streams. Ahead of the curve preferably. Ch-ch-changes.

    allan (00f294)

  60. Patterico, you have forced apologies from other posters who have written that kind of hateful nonsense.

    All he does is offer the mealy – mouthed “I’m sorry if x offended person took it this way,” instead of a sincere apology. So it doesn’t matter if he apologizes or not, it won’t be understood to be of any substance.

    can make a lot of sense when he does not personalize his ideas
    .

    Wait, that’s a subtle attempt at satire, correct?

    Dmac (49b16c)

  61. The Orange County Register covered the rally on their front page:

    http://www.ocregister.com/articles/came-brought-ken-2328216-others-john#

    Luc (8b1f46)

  62. Liberal media outlets will cover a dozen protestors if they agree with them. Anybody that hasn’t seen this isn’t paying attention.

    Hax, hax, hax…..excuse me I’ve got a bit of a cold coming on.

    EBJ (2fd7f7)

  63. It’s funny that the Times post regarding why they did not cover the event has a link to comment, but no comments posted. Are we really supposed to believe that no one has commented on their half assed excuse? I know I commented.

    gabriel (3b1f6b)

  64. Ack.

    bob (cc4ef9)

  65. Isn’t getting at least 8000 people to show up at a promotional event newsworthy to some extent?

    Ira (28a423)

  66. Not if they are the “wrong” kind of people with the “wrong” ideas, Ira, that’s the LAT reasoning.

    SPQR (72771e)

  67. Another newspaper, my paper, the Pasadena Star-News had FRONT page coverage in this past Sunday’s edition. I give them credit. Oh, and Fullerton is NOT in their coverage area whatsoever. The Left Angeles Times arrogance is what is going to kill it. Slowly and certainly.

    Mark J. Goluskin (7d94a9)

  68. Nearly a decade ago, there was an anti-Clinton rally in DC. The rally had a few thousand American citizens giving speeches and demanding Clinton’s resignation. Where was the press? They were interviewing about 10 Clinton supporters, all of whom were African-American. The press people nearly equaled the crowd. The press’ animosity to the folks is clear – and that is why newspapers are seeing their circulation decline.

    I want a viable news industry that works per the first amendment. I have no use for a left-wing pro-socialist propaganda machine.

    Bob (73a5e1)

  69. Let’s see –
    - Pasadena – front page
    - OC Register – front page
    - Local Fox TV – prime time news
    - LA Times – an online explanation of why they didn’t cover it, with no comments being approved by staff.

    Just giving readers what they want, I guess!

    carlitos (3f0da9)

  70. As I said before, twice, the LA Times should have covered the rally.

    Any time you have thousands of people showing up for just about anything that isn’t mass entertainment, it’s a good opportunity to attract readers.

    Where I disagree is whether the non-coverage was motivated by ideology.

    Pablo absurdly claims Beverly Hills is 16 miles from the LAT office, but it’s more like 7 miles. Moreover, the paper’s readership is concentrated on the city’s West side.

    Even more absurd are either orr’s claims that the NY Post and Washington Times are profitable and feature more liberal commentary than NYT and Wapo feature conservatives.

    The leading voices of conservative are mainstays of Wapo commentary, including George Will and Charles Krauthammer, while the NY Times gave Nixon speechwriter William Safire a weekly column for decades. That column was recently passed to William Kristol. The LA Times gives space to Jonah Goldberg, a certified wingnut.

    The New York Post has never, under Murdoch, employed a liberal columnist of similar standing, nor has the Washington Times. I doubt that’s really a matter of their bias, though, as it’s probably more that liberals with that level of standing would chose to be published in the papers of record. Still a fact, though.

    As for profitability, Murdoch has lost hundreds of millions of dollars on the NY Post year after year after year. He’s famous for keeping it alive out of mere faith in faith and if he can do it through the current newspaper depression, many will be amazed.

    The Washington Times loses money year after year as well, and lives on only through the donations of millions worldwide to the oddball church of Rev. Sun Young Moon.

    The hard times at NYT and Wapo have come only in recent years and clearly reflect the industry-wide downturn, not anything related to their news judgment.

    Closer to home, in Los Angeles, the question remains: is no one dumb enough, or smart enough to have published a conservative rival to LAT?

    Some posters have enough of a clue to realize that major metropolitan areas are bastions of liberalism, and their newspapers reflect that.

    Thus the real problem for conservatives isn’t that the biggest, best newspapers are liberal, but that most readers are.

    Hax Vobiscum (4012df)

  71. I can’t think of any reason why liberal readers in greater Los Angeles would want to know about a crowd of 15,000 conservatives with mock guillotines in Fullerton. Can any of you guys?

    carlitos (3f0da9)

  72. The Times did put up a few comments on their explanation.

    Here is my favorite, replying to California Editor David Lauter’s note that attendance was between 3,000 and 15,000, “depending on who’s counting:”

    Maybe the LA Times could send a reporter and photographer to these rallies (there will be more) to better determine how many protesters are actually in attendance. Just a thought.

    Posted by: Fallon | March 11, 2009 at 11:54 AM

    carlitos (3f0da9)

  73. Nope, carlitos. Clearly LA Times did the right thing here. The only reason it was stupid not to inform the readers of this extremely unusual democstration is because they might have attracted readers.

    Their long, long, long record of ridiculous bias has no bearing here. Move along now, nothing to see here. And it’s important to note that Beverly hills is 7 miles from the La times building or whatever. Very relevant.

    Juan (4cdfb7)

  74. Please

    DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS

    Do not even acknowledge them.

    Let them disappear, unlamented and forgotten, into the dust of last year’s Internet.

    steve miller (c76b20)

  75. Steve, I barely ever get to read the comments these days.

    My mistake.

    Juan (4cdfb7)

  76. In reading your post and the comments, there is a fact missing that’s important. The editor David Lauter did send the response you cited to all that wrote him an email complaining about the lack of coverage. I received it. But, what he did do, was send it as a mass mailing to all that sent him a comment. In otherwords, I received his reply with hundreds of email addresses including mine in the list in the email.

    Now, I asked myself, why do that? Save time for him? Uhh…embarass those that wrote? Uhh…put us on a spam list?

    Well since I received his reply, I am now getting all kinds of spam. Thanks David! I can only hope the LA Times goes BK.
    Mike Harlin, Tustin, CA

    Mike Harlin (e70426)

  77. Maybe you could forward them all a link to this post? Just be kind enough to put their addresses in “BCC” :)

    carlitos (3f0da9)

  78. “a crowd of 15,000 conservatives with mock guillotines in Fullerton.”

    I love how the 15,000 number has morphed into WMD-style truthiness here.

    Just shows how firmly identity conservatives cling to even the tiniest straw of evidence, whether or not it’s substantiated.

    If I were to insist on using the 3,000 number, everyone here knows the “mendacity” cliches would start spurting out like self-pity at Sarah Palin rally.

    I looked at the photos accompanying the OC Register story and in none of the 16 photos is more than a few hundred people visible. But that’s just photographic evidence. Never let that get in the way of a good whine.

    Mike K: that’s a superb suggestion. Here’s the deal, I’ll happily put my byline on all posts on one condition: you, Eric Blair, carlitos, juan, dmac agree not to comment on any of my posts or mention me. Surely that’s easy as pie for you, since, upon seeing my name first, none of you will be reading a word of what I have to say.

    I’ll start using the byline until any of the above makes comments on my posts or mentions me.

    Hax Vobiscum (23258e)

  79. Where I disagree is whether the non-coverage was motivated by ideology.

    That was already covered. Remember your words from before:

    Would be interesting to know whether LAT’s conservative rivals covered the event.

    If you’re going to make LAT’s bias a theme, shouldn’t you have something to compare it with?

    Well, as it has been pointed out, The OC Register — certainly to the right of The Times — covered the event.

    So, using your own yardstick, yes, The Times’ omission is an indication of an ideological decision.

    Steverino (69d941)

  80. Steve: the rally was in Fullerton, the OC Register’s front yard. But, yes, the OCR coverage is certainly evidence that the LAT’s decision may have had motives other than sound news judgment. It is by no means a case-closer, though.

    As you point out, all newspapers, including the OCR, have an ideological bias. Without an ideological bias, it wouldn’t be a newspaper: it would be a random collection of facts.

    The relevant question is whether the newspaper’s biases put it at odds with the facts and/or with their readers’ biases.

    Hax Vobiscum (23258e)

  81. millions marched against the iraq war and fox news called them traitors and gave them a sec of coverage. Now a family of rednecks protests and you expect the media to fawn over these idiots that most likely work at wal-mart and pay no taxes in the first place.

    we lost in iraq (841321)

  82. Well, the LAT had to be prodded into covering the Long Beach Halloween Hate Crime story, and then got it wrong, but at least the reporter drove south to get to the court house.

    Pablo’s right–it has to happen on Spring Street (“To Think I Saw it on Spring Street”–kid’s book, right?) or else in one of the places Timesfolk live–Mt.Washington, Santa Monica, etc.

    Mike– Save that email list! It’s the enemies of the LAT.

    KateC (207f3f)

  83. bring the troops back…preferably in bodybags.

    Tim (841321)

  84. more trolls I see.

    SPQR (72771e)

  85. Is it me, or are the comment timestamps about 33 minutes fast, Pacific Daylight Time?

    carlitos (3f0da9)

  86. Once again, the trolls’ density approaches that of a neutron star.

    Techie (9c008e)

  87. That number 84 was way over the top in offensiveness. As my daughter spent a 15-month tour in Iraq, I would appreciate an apology or an ip-ban. And yes, I’m serious.

    John Hitchcock (fb941d)

  88. Trolls UNITE!

    Dmac (49b16c)

  89. Thus the real problem for conservatives isn’t that the biggest, best newspapers are liberal, but that most readers are.

    Given the LATimes circulation numbers, that’s not something I’d personally hang my hat on.

    Techie (9c008e)

  90. we lost in iraq… You’re an idiot! You choose to ignore the facts, as most libs do and fail to see that this was a representation of your average middle income families. Many people from all ethnicities and economic status were represented as I happen to be. My family, immigrants from both Europe and Philippines, with careers ranging from auto mechanics, lawyers, CEO’s and those in the medical industry are all fed up with our politicians and the policies that are forced on us by the so called elites. Before you start calling people name, you should start looking into the facts and understand that the stupid politicians and sheep like yourself are running the State of California and the USA into the toilet.

    Luc (8b1f46)

  91. Certified wingnut

    Comment by Hax Vobiscum — 3/11/2009 @ 1:42 pm

    Didn’t you say employers who hire illegals could be/should be deported?

    Gerald A (adb85a)

  92. He also said that everybody knew that the economy was wrecked 18 months ago, right after a Q2 GDP growth rate of 4% and the stock market at 13,900.

    Because of the nuance.

    Techie (9c008e)

  93. Comment by Hax Vobiscum — 3/11/2009 @ 1:42 pm

    You’re saying it wasn’t covered for ideological reasons. So I don’t know what you’re arguing about.

    Gerald A (adb85a)

  94. Gerald, don’t feed the Vomitmeister.

    John Hitchcock (fb941d)

  95. by Hax Vobiscum

    Gerald A asks:
    “Didn’t you say employers who hire illegals could be/should be deported?”

    No Gerald, I didn’t. That was Pat’s way of pretending not to lose the argument. He didn’t have a leg to stand on, so he repeated that allegation ad nauseum and the Whine Club picked it up as some sort of mantra.

    I merely asked Pat if he was suggesting that illegal employers should be deported, since he wrote that “all the criminals should be deported first.”

    Turns out, Pat’s argument was that he had previously written on and developed the “all the criminals” meme into some sort of figure of speech such that his readers knew what he meant, even if it wasn’t clear from what he actually wrote.

    The whole thing was a big dodge from the real issue, which is that there isn’t enough political capital to be had in prosecuting illegal employers, while prosecuting illegal workers is a great way to arouse white identity conservatives.

    Hax Vobiscum (23258e)

  96. Shorter Hacks: Yes I did, but it’s Patterico’s fault. You racists.

    Techie (9c008e)

  97. You forgot to mention that Hacked Up a Hairball also thinks that we’re all murderers. So at least we got that going for us.

    Dmac (49b16c)

  98. Mike K: that’s a superb suggestion. Here’s the deal, I’ll happily put my byline on all posts on one condition: you, Eric Blair, carlitos, juan, dmac agree not to comment on any of my posts or mention me. Surely that’s easy as pie for you, since, upon seeing my name first, none of you will be reading a word of what I have to say.

    OK by me. I avoid your posts, as you may have noticed. I’m old and my eyes haven’t too many more years left so I try to avoid reading waste matter.

    Mike K (8df289)

  99. by Hax Vobiscum
    Well Mike K, I see dmac still can’t keep his eyes of my posts, even when I label them in advance. I guess I can let that slide and keep up with the byline, but at some point, if the obsession with what I have to say here continues, the byline is a little pointless, so I’ll stop using it.

    Hax Vobiscum (23258e)

  100. After reading through some of the comments i decided on two things….

    1. The Times is going under for the simple fact that they refuse to try to sell papers to everyone, and instead go after a target audience. There are a lot of people that buy a certain paper to read a certain story. Having 8,000 to 15,000 people attend a rally and not try to entice them to buy a paper by including a story about them is just dumb.

    2. There were a hell of a lot of people at that rally. Photo #2 doesn’t even capture the entire crowd. http://www.ocregister.com/photos/came-brought-ken-2328216-others-john/pid2328222

    3. This is for Hax… Your idol, Nancy Pelosi, is destroying this country.

    Marketing 101 (0feb11)

  101. by Hax V

    Marketeer: I thought Clinton already destroyed it; or was that Carter? Or FDR?

    The caterwauling about our imminent destruction is no more credible now than it was then.

    Hax Vobiscum (23258e)

  102. The editor David Lauter did send the response you cited to all that wrote him an email complaining about the lack of coverage. I received it. But, what he did do, was send it as a mass mailing to all that sent him a comment. In otherwords, I received his reply with hundreds of email addresses including mine in the list in the email.

    I guess those four levels of editors haven’t learned how to use BCC.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R., (3752aa)

  103. Marketing 101: Don’t feed the Vomitmeister©

    John Hitchcock (fb941d)

  104. Except when Bush was President.

    Then, the dark specter of tyranny and despotism was continually descending.

    Techie (9c008e)

  105. by Hax V
    “Except when Bush was President.”

    Indeed.

    Were it not for the conspiracy of the liberal media, academia, Hollywood, wikipedia, the Post Office, the Water Board, ”trolls” and the American voter, Bush would be recognized as the genius problem-solver he truly is. We’d have none of the current mess on our hands, we’d have won the war in Iraq, Donald Trump wouldn’t be bankrupt and George Soros would be.

    Hax Vobiscum (23258e)

  106. Hax,
    1. Clinton didn’t destroy the country, just shamed the office of the president and embarassed his wife.

    2. Carter tried his best, but he couldn’t even get that right.

    3. FDR was saved by a war.

    So what will it be for the puppet master? Pelosi get caught giving a BJ to an intern? (Doubtful). Drive up inflation to the point people can’t afford necessities, and then will then just pass legislation to take them from the “rich”. Or is WWIII coming??? Your call….

    Marketing 101 (0feb11)

  107. Marketing 101: Truly, the Vomitmeister©, whom you are feeding, is a troll. You will never get an honest debate out of it. Save your time.

    John Hitchcock (fb941d)

  108. Hax,
    One more thing… For it to be a “Conspiracy” it has to be kept secret. The Media’s effort to get Obama elected was in no way, shape, or form a secret.

    Marketing 101 (0feb11)

  109. Marketing 101: no need bother. This isn’t the troll you are looking for, to quote Obi Won Kenobi. Besides, if you look at the offending individual’s posts, they usually self contradictory. It is just here to argue and stir the pot, all the while sniffing in supposed superiority.

    It’s a game. Laugh at the person if you like, but do not engage directly.

    YMMV.

    Eric Blair (8d54e0)

  110. Good point, Marketeer: the red-baiters got it wrong with FDR, Carter and Clinton, so there’s no reason to believe they’ll get it right with Obama. When the economy turns around, they’ll find someone else to credit and something else to whine about, you can take that to the bank.

    Hax Vobiscum (23258e)

  111. Hitchcock,
    Did you actually copywright “Vomitmeister”. HAHAHAHA!!! Too Funny.

    Marketing 101 (0feb11)

  112. “Pelosi get caught giving a BJ to an intern?”

    - Marketing 101

    Don’t joke about that – I was an intern.

    Leviticus (a7ed36)

  113. And it’s too horrible to contemplate.

    Leviticus (a7ed36)

  114. It will do you no good to engage trolls. Best to just ignore them. Eventually they give up.

    steve miller (c76b20)

  115. Yes, I did copyright Vomitmeister©. I did that shortly after patenting the 8-track tape and the 8-track tape player. Those things made me a couple bucks in the 70s.

    John Hitchcock (fb941d)

  116. It is great to see that the Tea Party’s are spreading. Don’t forget to make plans to attend your local one on April 15th. http://www.taxdayteaparty.com E-mail and call your local newspaper editor, and Television News producers every day leading up to the protest.

    Marketing 101 (0feb11)

  117. by Hax V
    Thanks John! As witless as your insults are, they are more worthwhile than your occasional comments on the thread itself.

    And a shout-out to you too, Eric. So glad to see you always have time for my work.

    Hax Vobiscum (23258e)

  118. And it’s always nice to see Patterico’s: Where the Trolls Make the Rules!

    Seriously, dude. Go start your own blog, and quit trying to make rules here. You have a blog, I thought. Oh, that’s right: either you don’t have one, or nobody posts there. So you fling poo here.

    I’m actually waiting for this troll to continue to insult people and finally get around to insulting Patterico. It’s happened multiple times before. Then our host tells the troll to behave, and grudgingly, the troll does. For a time. Rinse and repeat.

    It’s pretty amusing, really. Since the troll is such a smart, Troof to Powder dude!

    Eric Blair (8d54e0)

  119. The relevant question is whether the newspaper’s biases put it at odds with the facts and/or with their readers’ biases.

    No, only the facts matter on the news page. The bias can manifest itself on the opinion page. When the two mix, the paper has lost its way.

    But, if I accept your claim, then the fact that The Times is bleeding money and laying off staff, I’d say that The Times bias has offended enough readers to drive them away.

    Steverino (b12c49)

  120. Hack complaining of witless insults? Warning! Irony poisoning!

    SPQR (26be8b)

  121. I came back just to check and see if the troll was wasting his entire life trying to screw with the blog.

    I’m laughing at him. But really, it’s probably an example of some kind of mental illness. Either that, or a conservative who is clever enough to make the liberal argument look absolutely awful, and insane enough to carry through to this degree.

    Or an excellent bot from the future. Skynet?

    Joco (4cdfb7)

  122. by Hax V.
    Thanks again, Eric. I never comment on your posts, as there’s really nothing worth saying about them, unless, of course, your talking about me, which is seems to be your favorite subject.

    Don’t you think your obsession with me makes you look small-minded?

    Hax Vobiscum (23258e)

  123. So continue to not comment on my posts, pal. I mean, you say that folks are pretty infatuated with you. Projection, for the umpteenth time. It sure does look like you post to stir people up, and then post your usual nonsense in reply.

    Again: get thee to a nunnery, go!

    Eric Blair (8d54e0)

  124. Actually, I saw an Islamic individual of some “importance” on Fox News the other day, mouthing the “tiny minority” meme. I wonder if the Vomitmeister© is that person.

    John Hitchcock (fb941d)

  125. Joco, as for trollbots, I put my money on Parry.

    Eric Blair (8d54e0)

  126. by Hax V.

    Stevo writes: “The Times is bleeding money and laying off staff, I’d say that The Times bias has offended enough readers to drive them away.”

    Problem with that theory is that all newspapers are having the same problem. It’s industry-wide, so no reason to blame it on anything specific to the Times.

    And even if the Times went under tomorrow, it would still be outperforming its conservative rival, which can’t pool enough readers to launch in the first place, apparently.

    Hax Vobiscum (23258e)

  127. We’re dealing with a professional here.

    Techie (9c008e)

  128. Thanks again, Eric. I never comment on your posts, as there’s really nothing worth saying about them

    To which Hairball commences to immediately comment on – projection, indeed.

    BTW, how’s that pet ocelot of yours? Whiskers, isn’t that his name? Stroking it much these days?

    Dmac (49b16c)

  129. Were it not for the conspiracy of the liberal media, academia, Hollywood, wikipedia, the Post Office, the Water Board, ”trolls” and the American voter, Bush would be recognized as the genius problem-solver he truly is. We’d have none of the current mess on our hands, we’d have won the war in Iraq, Donald Trump wouldn’t be bankrupt and George Soros would be.

    We did win the war in Iraq.

    Gerald A (adb85a)

  130. And Donald Trump isn’t bankrupt.

    Pablo (99243e)

  131. And Soros is morally bankrupt, for what that’s worth.

    Pablo (99243e)

  132. Since we’re piling on, is this the wiki honesty right here?

    John Hitchcock (fb941d)

  133. We did win the war in Iraq.

    Comment by Gerald A — 3/11/2009 @ 7:51 pm

    I should add the fact many, maybe most people don’t give Bush credit for winning Iraq is the result of the media’s sudden reduced coverage of Iraq as the situation improved.

    Also hurricane Katrina was a case of massive distorted liberal media coverage of the situation. There is no objective measure by which the Bush administration’s handling of relief efforts failed to measure up to past disasters, most of which were on a much lesser scale.

    Iraq and Katrina were the two biggest contributors to Bush’s popularity slide – both were cases of distorted media coverage.

    Gerald A (adb85a)

  134. Proof of the Troll Strategy of Circular Reasoning:

    All from a specific troll, on this threadm (regarding the topic of ideological bias in reporting at the LAT), during the last 24 hour period:

    “Having said that, I see no reason to believe there was some sort of ideological blind spot behind it.”
    12:13 AM

    “I certainly agree the paper should have covered it, but don’t think it has anything to do with any kind of ideological bias.”
    1:14 AM

    “Only a “moral relativist” or an amoralist can rationally suggest that a newspaper should strive for political balance. Only someone who believes all political ideas, and their moral basis, are equal can logically suggest that a factual newspaper give all political ideas equal prominence.”
    5:25 AM

    “Where I disagree is whether the non-coverage was motivated by ideology.”
    1:42 PM

    “As you point out, all newspapers, including the OCR, have an ideological bias. Without an ideological bias, it wouldn’t be a newspaper: it would be a random collection of facts.”
    3:52 PM

    Now, we went from:

    1. There is no ideological bias at the LAT.

    to

    2. You can’t show that there is ideological bias at the LAT.

    to

    3. All newspapers have ideological biases.

    With no apparent irony.

    I left out the assertion that most of the readership of all newspapers approves of the ideological bias, since the dwindling readership might be involved.

    Also the scatter shots of off topic insults and gibes.

    But it proves the point: it’s just about arguing, and sounding snide and superior, just like always. Same as it ever was, to quote David Byrne.

    Yep, this kind of troll really elevates discussion. Keep this in mind the next time this comes up. It’s just about arguing. Nothing more.

    Eric Blair (8d54e0)

  135. EB, I actually believe for the most part the Dog Trainer isn’t written based on bias.

    Agenda, not bias. ;)

    John Hitchcock (fb941d)

  136. Wikipedia is good as a beginning of research, but it’s not to be relied upon as a sole source. I hope everyone knows that. There are startling fictions inserted into Wikipedia entries. This is one (since removed), about Gary Sinise:

    Despite Sinise’s Anglo-Saxon ancestry, his surname is derived from French, tracing back to Sigeberht of Deira in the eleventh century. Sigeberht suffered from intestinal diverticulitis, a bacterial infection resulting in a fistula between his colon and bladder. Sigeberht traveled to France seeking medical treatment, where he underwent a procedure that punctured a hole in his pelvic area allowing him to excrete waste from the large intestine. It was here that he received the moniker “sin anise,” a medically inaccurate description of his condition, translated as “without anus.” Two generations later, this French phrase was Anglicized and shortened to the current “sinise.”

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407)

  137. Wow – magic legs and a magic colon! Who knew?

    carlitos (3f0da9)

  138. Hacks does claim to be a journalist, right? (I can’t keep all the trolls straight).

    This may just be par for the course.

    Techie (9c008e)

  139. EB and JH, etc.
    I’m sure most of the bias at the LA Times (and other media outlets) is produced by reporters who actually believe they aren’t biased. They really think their agenda is The Truth, and that they are being persecuted for bringing The Truth to an insufficiently grateful readership.

    Hence the aggrieved attitude of injured innocence, along with the persecution complex and belief among some journalists that the public should be forced to support them in one way or another, anger at the Internet for allegedly stealing ad revenue they think of as their property, and the whole noisome line of fantasies.

    One might more accurately say their problem is not just bias, but delusion.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407)

  140. Bradley, like when Sam Zell told off that reporter, who didn’t want to report on what readers, er, want?

    Arrogant journalist: I hear you guys talking a lot about revenue and the bottom line and all that, but I’m a journalist? I kind of want to know what your viewpoints are on journalism and the role it plays in the community, because we’re not the Pennysaver, we’re a newspaper.

    Zell: My attitude on journalism is very simple. I want to make enough money so I can afford you. It’s really that simple, OK? You need to, in effect, help me by being a journalist that focuses on what our readers want, and therefore generates more revenue. We understand unequivocally that the heart and soul of this business is the editorial side of the business. That’s our content. But if we don’t have the revenue, it doesn’t really matter.

    Arrogant journalist: But what readers want are puppy dogs, and, I mean, we also need to inform the community, not just —

    Zell: I’m sorry. I’m sorry. I can’t agr — You’re giving me what I call the classic journalistic arrogance — deciding that puppies don’t count. I don’t know anything about puppies. What I’m interested in is, how can we generate additional interest in our product and additional revenue, so we can make our product better and better. And hopefully we get to the point where our revenue is so significant that we can do puppies and Iraq. Fuck you.

    carlitos (3f0da9)

  141. Just wanted to say to Hax Vobiscum, thanks for labeling your posts at the top even though I know it’s a bit inconvenient. Appreciate it. Hopefully now you’ll get less of the kind of attention you don’t want, and more of the kind you do.

    no one you know (1ebbb1)

  142. Techie,
    BunkerTrollHax makes vague noises about being a journalist, but won’t say where or in what capacity. If it is a journalist, it can’t be very successful or happy in its career, or it wouldn’t be trolling around the Web like any frustrated nobody desperately seeking attention.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407)

  143. by Hax V
    Eric:

    I didn’t say the LAT had no ideological bias. I said its failure to report the tax protest at a bar in Fullerton didn’t appear to be the result of ideological bias.

    Nor did I say, or imply, that you can’t show the LAT has an ideological bias. My point is that all newspapers are biased, of necessity. Every major newspaper, for example, supports democracy as preferable to dictatorship. That’s a value judgment, just ask the Singaporeans. We could go on in that vain with countless other examples, but that should suffice.

    My position is clear and always has been: all newspapers have ideological bias. If they didn’t, almost no one would read them. The problem wingnuts have is that some papers don’t have a bias they find ideologically correct.

    If you’re going to try and twist what I write, you’re going to have to try a lot harder than that.

    Perhaps you silliest, most small-minded claim is that I’m the one who somehow derails discussions here. You’re the one who slobbers like Pavlov’s dog each and every time I comment. I’ve pleaded with you to simply ignore me, but to no avail, you continue, in between your own pleas with others to ignore me. Pathetic…

    Hax Vobiscum (23258e)

  144. Pablo absurdly claims Beverly Hills is 16 miles from the LAT office, but it’s more like 7 miles. Moreover, the paper’s readership is concentrated on the city’s West side.

    The LA Times building is at 202 W. 1st St. Los Angeles, CA 90012. The Beverly Hilton is at 9876 Wilshire Boulevard, Beverly Hills, CA 90210. 16.4 miles. Google it.

    Further, the Times is THE daily paper for the City of Los Angeles and its greater metro area. Fool.

    Pablo (99243e)

  145. If you’re going to try and twist what I write, you’re going to have to try a lot harder than that.

    Why bother with that when it’s so frigging easy to demolish your idiocy straight up, on its face?

    Pablo (99243e)

  146. As an astute poster noted, the demonstration noted in this post was less than 3 miles from the LA Times Fullerton office, yet they couldn’t be bothered to send an intern.

    carlitos (3f0da9)

  147. by Hax V.

    Brad says I “make vague noises about being a journalist.”

    Not so.

    Pat said I’m a journalist. If he hadn’t said that, no one here would know.

    My only comment whatsoever in that regard has been that my profession should have no bearing on the value of my commentary. I have said as well that there’s zero glamor in what I do for work. But alas, the Whine Club just can’t get over that I’m paid to write. Grow up!

    Hax Vobiscum (23258e)

  148. Pablo,
    The LA Times building is at 202 W. 1st St. Los Angeles, CA 90012. The Beverly Hilton is at 9876 Wilshire Boulevard, Beverly Hills, CA 90210. 16.4 miles. Google it.

    Now don’t go confusing bunkertrollHax with facts. Everything is ideologically biased, and nothing is. There are no facts, just feelings. A perfect “journalist” is our troll!

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407)

  149. Someone told me that he heard a woman on the radio today say that to test the level of interest expressed by the LA Times regarding a potential news story, she called some writer/reporter/editor at the Times about an event (which was fictional) involving a group of illegal immigrants. When the person at the LA Times heard about the would-be event, he or she apparently immediately asked for the location of the make-believe rally.

    The woman poseur said that a similar level of interest wasn’t apparent when she called the Times to inform them of some event that wouldn’t tug at the heartstrings of a stereotypical muddle-headed, clueless liberal (ie, 80 to 90 percent of those in the profession of journalism).

    Mark (411533)

  150. #143: You keep telling yourself that. Especially the continued insults. Everyone can read YOUR posts. You are just playing Clinton-esque games with definitions, and it is ALL just a game to you. You were caught, this time.

    Since you get paid to write, why not work a little harder at that job? I mean, in these economically depressed times, we can all use more coin.

    Rather than just play silly word games.

    Again, your own words are on record in these and on other threads.

    I guess it all depends on the meaning of “is,” naturally.

    In fact, since you are so darned good at suggesting rules for people, here is one:

    I will quit posting for one week if you quit posting for one week.

    Suits?

    In my opinion, you are really damaging the value of someone else’s blog. You think I am doing so.

    So let’s find out.

    Eric Blair (8d54e0)

  151. Pablo: Google says here the places you cite are 9.7 miles apart, or 11.5 miles driving.

    Of course, the Beverly Hilton is on the Western edge of Beverly Hills if we wanted to quibble. But we don’t. Suffice it to say it isn’t 16 miles, but more like 10, which is less than half the distance to Fullerton, and almost twice as close to 6.6 as it is to 16.

    Hax Vobiscum (23258e)

  152. Eric Blair,
    I will quit posting for one week if you quit posting for one week.

    (anguished scream stifled).

    Please, . . . don’t devalue your contributions by linking them to the troll’s, or by attempting to reason with it.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407)

  153. by Hax V.
    Eric: again I appreciate your focus on me, but the value of this blog is primarily determined by Pat. People come here to read him, not me. (Although you may, in fact, come here to read me, in that you respond to me more often that you respond to Pat.)
    If you don’t like my posts, you don’t have to read them. And if you don’t read them, you’ll certainly have no call to comment on them.
    Why is that so hard for you to understand?

    Hax Vobiscum (23258e)

  154. And here we are, discussing whether 10 1/2 miles is whatever. Meanwhile, the LA Times office remains in Fullerton, a whopping 3 miles east of where several thousand people took time to protest economic policy and hang / execute the governor in effigy. But that’s not news, nor is it not news due to ideology. Much as they did in dozens of cities around the country, and were similarly ignored, a la at the Chicago Tribune.

    carlitos (3f0da9)

  155. I wonder if I’m being crazy for actually commenting on a blog, but here goes …

    I don’t think the LA Times decision not to cover the rally was solely based on bias, but I also think Lauter’s statement reads more like PR spin than the straight truth.

    Is an anti-tax rally – as opposed to an immigrants rights rally – likely to interest the thinly staffed OC bureau on a Saturday?

    Is there going to be less interest when the rally is led by a proudly bombastic radio talk show team, rather than a political outfit?

    My guess is the LA Times only has one reporter working in the OC Bureau on the weekend and didn’t want to send someone from Costa Mesa to Fullerton to cover another media outlet’s event in at the risk of missing coverage of unexpected breaking news. (If I’m wrong about the bureau’s staffing levels or if the LA Times has a physical presence in North OC, let me know.)

    But I also understand why the editor’s note pissed people off. Instead of giving a specific reason as to why the Times didn’t cover the rally, he just wrote that they’re not going to cover all rallies.

    A reader might not agree with a stated reason as to why the LA Times didn’t cover the rally, but at least they would have a straight answer. Plus, the Times is going to look dumb covering any future public employee rallies that are often implicitly or explicitly pro-tax hike.

    Mr. Pink (57d6fd)

  156. Well said. I have to say that these OC posts make me more and more want to head to Costa Mesa for sushi. The Cannery, perhaps.

    carlitos (3f0da9)

  157. “I have said as well that there’s zero glamor in what I do for work.”

    Well, bicycle repairman is not a exactly a glam job, but you do get to sniff the seats. I’ll bet you love that Hax.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  158. I still want to understand the Hax drug use theory between Obama and Limbaugh he trotted out on another thread. Obama discussing it in a bio, courageous and great. Limbaugh not discussing it until he’s busted, terrible and cowardly.

    Hax, is your equation

    Obama illegal drug use = good

    Limbaugh illegal drug use = bad

    If not, why not?

    You never answered the questions. Don’t chicken out again. Why did you criticize Limbaugh for not talking about his addiction while he was still using? Did you seriously expect him to invite an arrest on air?

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  159. by Hax V.
    Daley: read my comments on that again and get back to me. I didn’t say what you assert I said.

    Hax Vobiscum (23258e)

  160. Let the Audience decide:

    “Rush is discredited but your President is just being “real”???

    Obama used drugs in his youth and admitted it on his own in a best-selling book.

    Rush used drugs as an adult and admitted only after getting busted, and even then, he tried to portray the bust as some kind of conspiracy by Democrats and the media.

    But hey, you’re probably right in the sense that the drug-addled reference is a distraction from the real problem with Rush’s behavior: dishonesty.

    Comment by Hax Vobiscum — 3/10/2009 @ 4:32 pm

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  161. Thanks for that, Daley.

    I think its obvious that nothing I said can be implied to suggest I think Obama’s drug use = good. Nor did I suggest Obama was “just being real.”

    Rather the distinction I clearly drew was between the age differences at the time of the drug use and the way the abuses were discovered.

    You can try and respond to those distinctions, or, you can keep working to build bigger, fluffier strawmen that blatantly exaggerate and mischaracterize what I said.

    Hax Vobiscum (23258e)

  162. Rush’s drug use is the opposite of Obambi’s.
    Rush was taking prescription drugs prescribed by a doctor for whatever health reason.

    Obambi’s was recreational drug use, which is far different.

    I doubt that hacks can see the difference, maybe because it doesn’t fit well with hack’s insane agenda.

    ML (14488c)

  163. “Rather the distinction I clearly drew was between the age differences at the time of the drug use and the way the abuses were discovered.”

    Got it.

    Illegal drug use young = good

    Illegal grug use adult = bad

    Did you want to suggest an age cutoff for your equivalency test here?

    Keep going, you’re proving my points.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  164. Hacks is insinuating that young people are stupid.

    Wow, does hacks have anymore hasty generalizations up his sleeve.

    ML (14488c)

  165. Wrong again, Daley. Here’s a hint, just directly respond to what I actually wrote, rather than writing something yourself and asserting that what you wrote is my point. When you do the latter, you draw attention to your need to bend what I’ve said before attacking it. If you didn’t need to do that, you’d just respond directly to what I said.

    Here’s my point in your terms:

    Illegal drug use when young = understandable

    Illegal drug use as an adult = less understandable

    Admitting illegal drug use in a published book when you expect to have a political career = somewhat courageous

    Trying to blame the revelation of your drug use on a conspiracy against you = somewhat paranoid + somewhat arrogant

    Hax Vobiscum (23258e)

  166. ML writes: “Rush was taking prescription drugs prescribed by a doctor.”

    That’s obviously untrue.

    If he was taking what a doctor prescribed, he wouldn’t have had any legal problem at all, nor would he have needed an employee’s help to acquire the drugs.

    Hax Vobiscum (23258e)

  167. Hax – You’re doing great. As I said, you’re proving my points.

    Obama drug use = understandable

    Limbaugh drug use = Not so much

    What was the outcome of the legal case Hax? What is the significance to you over how the drug use is revealed? You have not addressed the point of whether it is in an active user’s interest to discuss his use to a national radio audience. Can you do that please? Isn’t it a private matter?

    Think these issues through before you comment. Why is illegal drug more understandable for the young? Doesn’t it depend on the drug? Seriously, you need to think about these things.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  168. Daley: I haven’t changed my position, while you clearly have by, at long last, by addressing what I said, rather than making up a position for me and attacking that. Though you did insist on rewriting, yet again, my statements. I guess old strawman building habits die hard.

    As I already explained, it takes courage to reveal that you’ve used cocaine — especially if you are or intend to be a career politician. Of course, in Obama’s case, he may have also assumed that it would eventually come out anyway, so maybe he weighed the impact and figured it was better to fess up early. Hard to say, isn’t it?

    In Rush’s case, he never accepted responsibility for breaking the law. Instead, he claimed that his enemies were out to get him. That’s what children do. That’s why his drug use hurts his credibility more than Obama’s does.

    Hax Vobiscum (2e2a91)

  169. Comment by Hax Vobiscum — 3/11/2009

    See in my #23 where “Beverly Hills” is in blue? That is called a hyperlink. If you click on it, it will open another page which adds meaning to the statement. If you then read that page, you wouldn’t look like an asshole. Or maybe you would, but that’s just you.

    Pablo (99243e)

  170. Trying to blame the revelation of your drug use long time membership in a racist church on a conspiracy against you = somewhat paranoid + somewhat arrogant

    FTFY.

    Pablo (99243e)

  171. I still want to understand the Hax drug use theory between Obama and Limbaugh

    I’d also like to explore the reasoning behind labeling all of us as “murderers,” if that’s not too inconvenient for Hairball.

    Dmac (49b16c)

  172. We are not all murderers, Dmac. We just have murderous intent and long for assassination.

    JD (e43198)

  173. Pablo: Google says here the places you cite are 9.7 miles apart, or 11.5 miles driving.

    No, it doesn’t say that at all. It offers a number of suggestions that might be what you were trying to find. It’s trying to tell you that you’re not making sense. “9.7″ appears nowhere on that page. Let me “absurdly suggest” again that the distance is 16.4 mi – about 24 mins (up to 1 hour 10 mins in traffic).

    Are you actively trying to destroy any credibility you might ever have hoped to have, Hacks? Granted, it’s tough to destroy nothing, but you appear to be attempting it.

    Pablo (99243e)

  174. Hacks had credibility?

    Techie (9c008e)

  175. Techie, I took great pains to refer to hypothetical, hoped for credibility and not any actual credibility. ;)

    Pablo (99243e)

  176. Ah, i obviously need more coffee.

    Techie (9c008e)

  177. Of course, it’s more important whether one has a helicopter to fly from Spring St. to the Beverly Wilshire than whether a major metro US daily with a long pattern of bias, slanted coverage and omission of ‘news’ which doesn’t advance its agenda covers a major demonstration in its metro area. While simultaneously covering much smaller demonstrations in LA, Westwood and … Norcross Georgia. Oh, and Rush Limbaugh! or something.

    Wingnuts.

    carlitos (3f0da9)

  178. Pedantic and wrong is no way to go through life.

    Pablo (99243e)

  179. “Instead, he claimed that his enemies were out to get him.”

    Hax – Did Limbaugh run for office? What charges were filed? Of what charges was he found guilty? You’re still dodging. I haven’t changed a thing. You’re excusing illegal drug use by Obama but not by Limbaugh, stop dodging.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  180. The whole thing reminds me of this cartoon.

    carlitos (3f0da9)

  181. “In Rush’s case, he never accepted responsibility for breaking the law.”

    Prove this.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  182. The Chicago Tribune (which owns the L.A. Times) couldn’t be bothered to report on the tea party demonstration just outside the Tribune Tower here in Chicago. Why should anyone expect that the L.A. Times will bestir themselves to cover one that is miles away from their offices?

    I made this comment on the L.A. Times blog. It’s still sitting in the moderation queue a day later.

    And will probably never leave it.

    Bill Roper (e07696)

  183. Hax – Here’s a little info for your delectation. Check out the start of the thing by a tabloid newspaper and then the seizure of records.

    “WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. (AP) — Rush Limbaugh reached a settlement with prosecutors Friday in a fraud case involving prescription painkillers, though the conservative radio commentator maintains his innocence.
    Limbaugh turned himself in to authorities about 4 p.m. on a warrant for fraud to conceal information to obtain a prescription, the first charge in the nearly 3-year-old case, said Teri Barbera, a spokeswoman for the state attorney. He was released an hour later on $3,000 bail.

    Limbaugh’s attorney, Roy Black, said his client and prosecutors reached a settlement on a charge of doctor shopping.

    Under the deal, Limbaugh would eventually see the charge dismissed in 18 months if he continues treatment for drug addiction, Black said.

    Limbaugh also must continue to seek treatment from the doctor he has seen for the past 2 1/2 years, Black said.

    Limbaugh entered a plea of not guilty in court Friday.

    “Mr. Limbaugh and I have maintained from the start that there was no doctor shopping, and we continue to hold this position,” Black said in an e-mailed statement.

    Prosecutors began investigating Limbaugh in 2003 after a tabloid newspaper reported that his housekeeper said he had used her to illegally buy painkillers. He soon took a five-week leave from his radio show to enter a rehabilitation program.

    Prosecutors seized Limbaugh’s records after learning that he received about 2,000 painkillers, prescribed by four doctors in six months, at a pharmacy near his Palm Beach mansion. They contended that Limbaugh engaged in “doctor shopping,” or illegally deceived multiple doctors to receive overlapping prescriptions.

    Limbaugh acknowledged he became addicted to pain medication, blaming it on severe back pain.

    According to Black, Limbaugh also has agreed to make a $30,000 payment to the state to defray the public cost of the investigation. The agreement also provides that he must refrain from violating the law during this 18 months, must pay $30 per month for the cost of supervision and comply with other similar provisions of the agreement.”

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  184. NEW YORK — Radio talk show host and political commentator Rush Limbaugh (search) stunned listeners when he admitted that he is addicted to painkillers (search).

    “You know I have always tried to be honest with you and open about my life,” Limbaugh said Friday on his program. “So I need to tell you today that part of what you have heard and read is correct. I am addicted to prescription pain medication.”

    Limbaugh said he began taking the medication “some years ago” when his doctor prescribed it after spinal surgery, to treat post-operation pain.

    But the operation was unsuccessful and the back pain stemming from the surgery persisted, so Limbaugh said he started taking pills without knowing how addictive they were. He became hooked.

    He said he’s tried to break his dependence on the painkiller and twice checked himself into medical facilities for treatment.

    Limbaugh promised listeners he would again enter rehab for the next 30 days, immediately following Friday’s broadcast, “to once and for all break the hold this highly addictive medication has on me.”…………

    10/11/03

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  185. When Limbaugh admitted the drug problem on his program, he said he wasn’t a victim and didn’t want to be portrayed as such.

    “I am no role model,” the radio commentator said. “I refuse to let anyone think I am doing something great here … I take full responsibility for my problem.”

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  186. “In Rush’s case, he never accepted responsibility for breaking the law. Instead, he claimed that his enemies were out to get him. That’s what children do. That’s why his drug use hurts his credibility more than Obama’s does.

    Evidently Hack does not think that Hack’s making up stuff hurts Hack’s reputation.

    Guess that tells us what Hack thinks of his own reputation, doesn’t it?

    SPQR (72771e)

  187. Hax – Can you see over the edge of that hole you’ve dug?

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  188. Again, Hacks, new orders are out. Rush is yesterday’s news, next up is Eric Cantor.

    Techie (9c008e)

  189. daley, those are news reports. They have no credibility.

    danebramage (756d38)

  190. “daley, those are news reports. They have no credibility.”

    danebramage – Unfortunately you are correct. And those quotes from Limbaugh – worthless. Why do I even try?

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  191. #190 daleyrocks: I’ll just note in passing that according to Mark Levin, after all the hoohah was done and over, Limbaugh couldn’t account for about 40 oxycontin tabs/caps.

    Hell, I’ve walked off and left more than that number of 4mg hydromorphone tabs sitting in the bathroom at the motel.

    EW1 (e27928)

  192. EW1 – It’s tough to keep track of the little fuckers. You keep forgetting if you ate them or left them somewhere or heaven forbid, somebody took them from you and you need to find them and kick their ass!

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  193. The case against Rush by the Palm Beach Co. DA was a political prosecution, pure and simple, from the git-go!

    AD - RtR/OS (6b685f)

  194. Hax does need to get back here to acknowledge his errors above.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  195. Maybe you could forward them all a link to this post? Just be kind enough to put their addresses in “BCC

    How did you know I was going to do that?!

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  196. If you can point to what you think my errors are, Daley, perhaps I can respond.

    At the moment, all I see is that you’ve posted information showing that Limbaugh agreed to pay cash to settle the case and agreed to probation as well.

    He said he “accepts responsiblity” for his addiction, but he also blamed its discovery on some kind of media plot against him. If you want to deny that, we can bring on the evidence. Otherwise, I don’t know what you think my “errors” are.

    Hax Vobiscum (23258e)

  197. While I never actually listen to Rush’s show… that guy is an example of how to take responsibility for mistakes. He was pilloried by those who have abused cocaine for his abuse of a drug he was originally prescribed for a medical problem. Amazing.

    He’s still there, more powerful than ever. Even Obama can’t touch him. Obama, by the way, used a lot of cocaine and bragged about it in his ridiculous memoirs. No problem though, because Obama’s a liberal and therefore it’s not hypocritical for him to use drugs. Liberals don’t stand for personal morality, so I guess that makes their abuses less newsworthy.

    Hax has dedicated himself to this blog in an inspiring way. I doubt the actual blog authors spend as much time on here. Pretty nifty.

    Juan (4cdfb7)

  198. Seriously, if I had penned 2 memoirs at such a young age, I’d be embarrassed. Just call it your ‘diary’ and keep it to yourself, kid!

    Patterico – great minds, as usual :)

    carlitos (3f0da9)

  199. Ugh – hit return and it submitted the comment.

    Seriously, Mr. Patterico, you asked folks to fwd your blog to friends, and subsequently you have definitely increased linkage / comments from a wide variety of sources. Kudos. It never hurts to ask. A lot of for-profit enterprises could learn from this.

    carlitos (3f0da9)

  200. He said he’s tried to break his dependence on the painkiller

    And an asterisk deserves to be put next to this story since Limbaugh was trying to relieve intense, chronic pain. As someone who suffered from a few days (and merely a few days) of excruciating back pain several years ago, I for the first time understood what some people meant when they said that extreme pain triggered a feeling of panic. Until then, I had been somewhat puzzled by the use of that word in conjunction with pain.

    As for the guy currently in the White House, I’d guess his use of drugs (more specifically narcotics) was to get high for the sake of getting high. And to be hip and kewl. Knowing him, maybe to even enhance his sensations when going through, say, an orgasm.

    Mark (411533)

  201. For those of you debating on a strategy to engage certain obtuse posters, I offer this as a suggestion.

    Hax 16
    Would be interesting to know whether LAT’s conservative rivals covered the event.

    beer ‘n pretzels 29
    There are two ways of finding an answer:

    1. Read the Orange County Register, which did cover it,
    2. Read Patterico’s post, which mentioned #1.

    ——

    Mark, thanks for bringing Presidential orgasm back into my forebrain. It had been elsewhere for 8 years, but there you go.

    carlitos (3f0da9)

  202. If you can point to what you think my errors are, Daley, perhaps I can respond.

    See #175, nitwit.

    Pablo (99243e)

  203. There are none that are so blind as a mendoucheous twatwaffle what refuses to see.

    JD (abe6ab)

  204. Hax – To clarify your position:

    Obama illegal drug use = young and understandable

    Limbaugh illegal drug use = incomprehensible, disgustinging, and the man never took resposibility.

    I’d say your position on Limbaugh was blown out of the water. You claim he never talked about his use unitl he was “busted”. He was never “busted” by the authorities, he was “busted” by the media, which is what you’ll now claim you meant. He was never convicted of anything, which you again fail to note. He also sought repeated treatment for his addiction.

    So again, how are the two illegal drug users different, except that one is the President of the United States? Why did your comment have any validity except as a failed attack based on misinformation you probably gathered at Media Matters?

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  205. Hax – You basically need to fess up and acknowledge you knew nothing about the Limbaugh case and were pulling shit out of your ass in a failed attempt to score points with a flawed analogy. It’s what you do all the time here.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  206. Pablo: The Google link you used charts a path along the Santa Monica Freeway.

    As you can see from the map, this requires a long drive south to get from the LAT HQ to the freeway, then a long drive north to get from the freeway to the Beverly Hilton.

    That’s it’s by no means the shortest route, and thus no measure of the distance between the two points. It is possibly the fastest way to get from one place to the other — depending on traffic. Personally, I’d take Sunset Blvd. But that’s because I drive an Alfa-Romeo Spyder, not because I’m dumb enough to try and argue that its a measure of the distance between the two places.

    As I noted, it’s 9.7 miles between the LAT HQ and the Beverly Hilton. The shortest driving route is 11 miles. Case closed.

    What’s amazing is that you would argue this stuff when the facts are so plain and accessible in seconds to all readers.

    Hax Vobiscum (23258e)

  207. Daley: As I said before, when you write something, and attribute it to me, it’s obvious that you’re responding to something you yourself have said, rather than what I have said. Why isn’t that obvious to you?

    If you can respond to what I actually wrote, I can the respond to your response.

    Otherwise, I’d be responding to your critique of views I’ve never stated.

    Hax Vobiscum (23258e)

  208. Did somebody queef ?

    JD (abe6ab)

  209. “If you can respond to what I actually wrote, I can the respond to your response.”

    Hax – If you can demonstrate where I misrepresented things you’ve said, great. Since you can’t, you’re out of luck. You can keep repeating your tired excuses endlessly, but I don’t see anybody buying them.

    People here know that if they want anymore shit out of you all they have to do (metaphorically speaking) is to squeeze your head. You are an intellectual fraud, dishonest and a coward. That’s been proven from Bradley’s importation of your comments from other blogs as well as your consistent misbehavior here. What IS your goal from posting here?

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  210. What an asshole. Sure, he’d take Sunset. So he could score a hummer from a tranny.

    carlitos (3f0da9)

  211. Also, just to be consistent:

    That’s it’s = journalist writing, absent layers of editors. I am telling you, the death of apostrophe is at hand, my friends.

    carlitos (3f0da9)

  212. They should cover these protests. Take a mic and ask folks about Obama’s Natural Born Citizenship.

    imdw (de7003)

  213. imdw,

    I suspect that the birth certificate issue will indeed be raised by mobies when these rallies become more of a PR problem for Obama.

    While I don’t accept that the issue has been settled… it’s a legit point to be irritated about in my opinion, it is also clearly a non-starter red herring that will make protesters look like paranoid crazies. Sadly, that’s the truth whether the Obama’s eligible or not (and he’s 99.999% likely to be eligible).

    So we can’t pretend we’ve heard the last of this issue. Obama and Axelrod will see to it that it’s brought up in a manner benficial to them.

    Juan (4cdfb7)

  214. “So he could score a hummer from a tranny.”

    Hey, don’t knock it, carlitos, unless you’ve tried it.

    Hax Vobiscum (23258e)

  215. Since I don’t believe that “Hax Vobiscum” has an actual sense of humor, I am going to say (for the ‘record’) that the previous comment is not him. If Haxx indeed has a sense of humor, and this is a manifestation thereof, I apologize in advance.

    carlitos (3f0da9)

  216. “What an asshole. Sure, he’d take Sunset. So he could score a hummer from a tranny.”

    carlitos – Where he lives, the probability is pretty high that’s what he’d get.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  217. Lola, L-O-L-A, Lola…..

    apology accepted.

    One of the more entertaining, if wasteful, parts of blogging here is observing the wild speculations about my identity, career, personal habits, etc. It’s stunning the directions into which some people’s minds wander…

    Hax Vobiscum (23258e)

  218. Gerbil caving mendoucheous twatwaffle

    JD (abe6ab)

  219. JD – I think Hax uses ferrets. They fit better with his personality.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  220. Well, Hax can’t possibly be Power Glutes… no way that guy would let anything even REMOTELY female-looking anywhere near his wang…

    Scott Jacobs (90ff96)

  221. Scott – No, he’s not, but he’s sure left a lot of footprints out there that three minutes of googling reveal. Maybe the putz is more illiterate than we thought.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  222. “#

    by Hax V
    “Except when Bush was President.”

    Indeed.

    Were it not for the conspiracy of the liberal media, academia, Hollywood, wikipedia, the Post Office, the Water Board, “trolls” and the American voter, Bush would be recognized as the genius problem-solver he truly is. We’d have none of the current mess on our hands, we’d have won the war in Iraq, Donald Trump wouldn’t be bankrupt and George Soros would be.

    Comment by Hax Vobiscum — 3/11/2009 @ 5:52 pm”

    In less than 60 days The One We did Not Wait For Or Want has made W look like a Nobel Prize in the sciences winner in comparison. Obama is an idiot. A stage prop. That is why he needs a teleprompter at a press conference and why none of his college transcripts have ever been made public along with other documentation. He is the Manchurian Candidate, the real question is who is pulling the dummy’s strings?

    cubanbob (409ac2)

  223. Yo Bob, How do you suppose Obama passed the bar exam?

    How did he write the two best-selling books his name is on?

    How did he become president of the law review at his university? or how did he even pass the LSE to get in in the first place?

    Sorry, but Obama’s got a long track record of intellectual achievement.

    Just doesn’t wash to portray him as some kind of dummy.

    You might argue that he’s made bad policy choices, but the idea that he’s not smart enough to be president is a dog that won’t hunt anywhere but wingnutland.

    Hax Vobiscum (23258e)

  224. Hacks, if you’re an intrepid LAT reporter, and there’s a story you want to cover at the Beverly Hilton, you’re going to get up from your desk, get in your car, and take the 10 to the 405. You’ll drive 16.4 miles. Unless it’s a story you and/or your boss don’t want covered, in which case you’ll be staking out your lobby for breaking news. Which was the point of my comment that has you in such high dudgeon.

    Now, you are correct about one thing. If you’re an intrepid LAT reporter and a pigeon it’s about a 10 mile flight. And if you flew to Fullerton, the rally would be over by the time you got there, but maybe you could still poop on John and/or Ken’s head. You’d like that, wouldn’t you?

    Pablo (99243e)

  225. You might argue that he’s made bad policy choices, but the idea that he’s not smart enough to be president is a dog that won’t hunt anywhere but wingnutland.

    Funny, the exact same characteristics that the Leftists like to use to claim brilliance for their candidates is the same set of characteristics that is ignored to claim that RethugliKKKans are dumb.

    JD (537b67)

  226. Um, no, Pablo. The 405 is all the way in Westwood.

    You’d get in your car, drive down to the 10, then get off on Crescent Heights.

    But let’s not quibble further over maps, or get into why you want the pigeon to fly to Fullerton, but the reporter to drive — via Westwood — to Beverly Hills.

    The only real issue here is why the Times didn’t cover a rally at a bar in Fullerton.

    One of the reasons may be that Fullerton isn’t exactly ground zero for Times readership. And that’s not just because it’s more than twice as far as Beverly Hills is from the Times HQ.

    It’s also because the paper’s advertisers are much more interested in the people who live in Beverly Hills than the people who live in Fullerton.

    The reality is that newspapers are desperate to fill their pages with the most compelling, relevent news they can gather with the resources at hand. There are always exceptions and, sure, it could be that one particular editor made a bad call on the Ken-John protest, and even possible that the bad decision was ideologically driven.

    Either way, it would be an exception, not the rule.

    Hax Vobiscum (4012df)

  227. Pablito – it is not about facts, amigo. It is about Teh Narrative, as JD might say. The fact remains that a paper with a record of bias, mis-reporting and non-reporting of ‘facts’ that don’t fit their world view ignored a rally of thousands of people. This rally took place in Fullerton, a place on which they regularly report, and where they indeed have a small office. None of this is in question; indeed even by their own admission it was not a question of geography. Geography is just the latest thing our friend wants to argue about, because, as noted, he gets off on the argument itself.

    Next, our intrepid reporter can answer his own question:

    How do you suppose Obama passed the bar exam?

    carlitos (3f0da9)

  228. One of the more entertaining, if wasteful, parts of blogging here

    So this is a full-time gig. Great.

    carlitos (3f0da9)

  229. Sending columnist Steve Lopez 2,300 miles to Wasilla = coverage of an important local issue.

    Not sending a reporter 23 miles to a rally in Fullerton = wise decision to ignore distant city and issue nobody cares about.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407)

  230. Um, no, Pablo. The 405 is all the way in Westwood.

    You’d get in your car, drive down to the 10, then get off on Crescent Heights.

    I’m going to “absurdly suggest” that you have another look at the map, nitwit.

    The only real issue here is why the Times didn’t cover a rally at a bar in Fullerton.

    The issue is that the Times covers stories they like, and that support their worldview, and that they ignore stories they don’t like and contradict their narrative, which is why they got scooped and scooped and scooped again by the freaking National Enquirer and just about every other news outlet in the country on a story that broke in their backyard.

    You might wish that why they didn’t go to Fullerton is the only issue here, but then that only demonstrates that you really don’t read this blog and/or that your level of comprehension is approximately zero. Clearly you can see the words on the screen and recognize them, but not much more.

    Pablo (99243e)

  231. Sending columnist Steve Lopez 2,300 miles to Wasilla = coverage of an important local issue.

    Yeah, Bradley, but Sarah Palin was a Vice-Presidential candidate! Whereas John Edwards was only a Presidential candidate. Who knocked up his mistress on the campaign trail. While his wife with the recurrent, terminal cancer was out stumping for him.

    Besides, did you hear about Palin banning Harry Potter? You gotta have a nose for news in that business!

    Pablo (99243e)

  232. Next Pablo is going to try and convince us that a major Presidential candidate knocking up his mistress, having her paid off by a campaign contributor and meeting her at the Beverly Wilshire is news in the LA area.

    Wingnut.

    carlitos (3f0da9)

  233. doh! apologies for stepping on yer post there.

    carlitos (3f0da9)

  234. One of the reasons may be that Fullerton isn’t exactly ground zero for Times readership. And that’s not just because it’s more than twice as far as Beverly Hills is from the Times HQ.

    Norcross, Georgia, is even less than ground zero for Times readership. And yet, the Times saw fit to cover a smaller rally there.

    A rally of a dozen people in Westwood got coverage.

    The more you deny an ideological bias in the coverage, the stupider you look.

    Steverino (69d941)

  235. I do enjoy the “The LA Times is a niche paper” argument. It really tickles me, especially as it starts to become the truth.

    Pablo (99243e)

  236. Sorry, but Obama’s got a long track record of intellectual achievement.

    I had to chuckle at that one. Wow, he wrote two memoirs and passed the bar exam. Color me impressed.

    Techie (9c008e)

  237. I just got off the phone with the LA Times Fullerton office. I asked for a fax # where I could send press releases that were relevant to Fullerton. The almost-intelligible person on the phone gave me the LA Times’ toll free customer service number. The telephone call was painful.

    carlitos (3f0da9)

  238. ” Wow, he wrote two memoirs and passed the bar exam.”

    Techie – I wasn’t aware that writing about yourself constituted intellectual achievement. Does that mean that anyone who maintains a journal or a diary is an intellectual?

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  239. The almost-intelligible person on the phone gave me the LA Times’ toll free customer service number. The telephone call was painful.

    What do you think, the LAT is a communications company or something?

    Bradley J. Fikes, C. O.R. (a18ddc)

  240. “What do you think, the LAT is a communications company or something?”

    Bradley – They need to stick to their core competencies, assuming they can figure out what they are.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  241. this is the part where hacks comes back to the thread and answers all of the obvious questions sent his way. oh, wait.

    carlitos (efdd90)

  242. LA times – same paper that suppressed the video of Obama celebrating with Khalidi: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/10/31/la-times-publishes-excuses-not-releasing-khalidi-video

    Unbiased? Hah. Lame A$$ Times.

    starboardhelm (94c0da)

  243. LA times – same paper that suppressed the video of Obama bashing Isreal with Khalidi: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/10/31/la-times-publishes-excuses-not-releasing-khalidi-video

    Unbiased? Hah. Lame A$$ Times.

    starboardhelm (94c0da)

  244. It should be noted that the Fullerton protest wasn’t a real “tea party”. It was basically an anti-Arnold event dealing with local issues. John & Ken would have absolutely no time for Randroid ideas.

    And, if anyone wants to actually do something effective, see my name’s link. A relatively small number of sparsely-attended rallies featuring loony signs are not going to have an impact. If anyone truly wants to do something effective, see my name’s link.

    Something actually effective (078238)

  245. but the LAT can report on a protest before it even happens!
    Thanks LAT, I’ve been wondering where ANSWER’s been lately.

    http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/03/aig-protest.html

    useless LAT (2325f0)

  246. ‘daleyrocks’ is a troll. you fell for it. he successfully changed the subject from john & ken to rush

    don’t fall for it again. don’t feed the trolls

    trollfinder (7df3e3)

  247. The almost-intelligible person on the phone gave me the LA Times’ toll free customer service number. The telephone call was painful.

    What do you think, the LAT is a communications company or something?

    Comment by Bradley J. Fikes, C. O.R.

    The ghost of Peter Drucker is asking “What business are you in ?”

    Mike K (90939b)

  248. Trolling by someone called “trollfinder” — how droll!

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R., (f34d89)

  249. Hax Vobiscum = Obama troll

    braininahat (6594ea)

  250. In fairness to the LA Times, Tim Rutten did manage a pretty decent column on the animal rights terrorists last week

    No sensible person dismisses the humane treatment of animals as inconsequential, but what the fanatics propose is not an advance in social ethics. To the contrary, it is an irrational intrusion into civil society, a tantrum masquerading as a movement. It is a kind of ethical pornography in which assertion stands in for ideas, and willfulness for argument, all for the sake of self-gratification. At the end of the day, there is no moral equivalence between the lives of humans and those of animals.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R., (f34d89)

  251. [...] L.A. Times: We Didn’t Cover the John and Ken Rally Because Those Guys Are Idiots Rallies of 15,000… Filed under: Dog Trainer, General — Patterico @ 11:42 pm [...]

    Silverbids.com » Blog Archive » L.A. Times: We Didn’t Cover the John and Ken Rally Because Those Guys Are Idiots Rallies of 15,000 People Aren’t Newsworthy. Oh REALLY?! (cabf22)

  252. I checked out the Norcross, GA story, and it was extremely vague. The actual date of the rally was not given (“on a recent afternoon” – there’s hard hitting news for you), and the actual name of the church where the rally was held was not given, either. As a denizen of Norcross, I can tell you there aren’t a lot of churches here that can hold 3000 people. I didn’t hear about any Norcross rallies, and if it was covered by our local news I missed it. The photo provided gives few clues about where the rally was held.

    The entire story reads more as an effort for political agitation than for actual news reporting. Even though the Chicago Tribune was apparently behind the story, it really was a poor example of journalism.

    Hal Crawford (5f08f2)

  253. The Times does not cover Orange County?

    Mike B (755370)

  254. The Times does not cover Orange County?

    Mike B (755370)

  255. http://www.latimes.com/sports/baseball/mlb/angels/

    sorry guess I did that wrong

    Mike B (755370)

  256. I work in Fullerton, and reside nearby…yes, there were a lot of people there. I was just wondering though, what is this “LA Times” everyone keeps referring to?

    Bill Donovan (b356d1)

  257. I love it when the same people who declare themselves long-time self-regarding non-users of the mainstream media then whine endlessly that their views are excluded by that same media.

    Hax Vobiscum (23258e)

  258. I haven’t changed my position, while you clearly have by, at long last, by addressing what I said, rather than making up a position for me and attacking that.

    Rasika (07e709)

  259. HI i am rasika i like thie concept.I haven’t changed my position, while you clearly have by, at long last, by addressing what I said, rather than making up a position for me and attacking that.

    Rasika (07e709)

  260. LA Times is BOUGHT AND PAID for by Liberals/Democrats/Socialists/Communists/Illegal Aliens/Muslim Extremists/Terrorists!
    The LA Times HAS a political agenda and it is as clear as the sky is…blue (on a clear day).
    Organizations like the LA Times have DESTROYED America and ADVANCED STEREOTYPES against American Citizens and White Males for 40+ years now.
    REAL VICTIMS, like those who have been killed/raped/identity stolen/SS# stolen, by ILLEGAL ALIENS are…ignored.
    Muslim Terrorists/Extremists are…ignored.
    They use CODE WORDS like “diversity” to make White Males, and American Citizens, feel GUILTY for standing up against those who want to do us ARM. THe fact is that the VICTIMS can’t “pick and choose” who attacks them, enters our Country ILLEGALLY, or anything else. Yet, we are supposed to IGNORE it when it is done by minorities/illegals/muslim terrorists.
    They can’t even SAY the words ILLEGAL ALIENS, MUSLIM TERRORISTS, MUSLIM EXREMISTS…COWARDS. PATHETIC COWARDS.
    American Citizens ARE what made this Country GREAT. AMERICAN CITIZENS ARE THE MAJORITY IN THIS COUNTRY AND THEY ARE LIKE THE MOVIE “BUGS LIFE” WHERE THE GRASSHOPPERS LAUGH ABOUT “IF THE BUGS EVER REALIZED THAT THEY OUTNUMBER US 5-1 THEY WOULD TAKE CONTROL”. WELL, AMERICAN CITIZENS ARE THE MAJORITY AND IT IS TIME WE TOOK OUR COUNTRY BACK!
    Nuff said.
    Jeff Schrembs, American Citizen

    Jeffrey Schrembs (b8fa95)

  261. Boy, those all caps sure make your message so much more convincing Jeffrey.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  262. Jeffrey has some anger issues he needs help with.
    Perhaps a long sit-down with EdPA? Might do them both some good – if they didn’t kill each other?

    AD - RtR/OS (a3a038)

  263. [...] and Ken hosted a taxpayer revolt that drew 8000-15,000 people, the paper refused to cover it, for transparently phony reasons. Editor David Lauter responded to hundreds of angry readers in one e-mail — and failed to use a [...]

    2009: A bad year for newspapers, especially The Los Angeles Times | The American Culture (e80cef)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.8935 secs.