Erin Aubry Kaplan, a contributing editor to the L.A. Times Opinion section, writes a column about the anticipated use of the term “Negro” in the upcoming Census. The title of her column is The term ‘Negro’? Color it obsolete:
Though it was the accepted term until the late ’60s, for those born after that, “Negro” is something they never answered to, a word that sounds only slightly less incendiary than “nigger.” Even older blacks tend to use it ironically or sarcastically when they use it at all, as in: “Those Negroes just can’t get it together.” Its taint goes back to slavery, when Southerners paternalistically referred to even free blacks as “our Negroes.” Contrast this unpleasantness with Barack Obama, who has established a 21st century standard of racial consideration that’s figuring into just about every discussion of color these days. To blacks of all ages, “Negro” and President Obama sharing the same era just feels wrong — maybe he isn’t post-racial, but isn’t he at least post-Negro?
This controversy may be new, but the angst about what to call ourselves is ancient. Over the last 40 years, we have self-identified as “black,” “Afro-American” and “African American” in an attempt get out from under the subjugation represented by “Negro” and, before that, “colored.”
. . . . In his civil rights rhetoric, the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. repeatedly infused “the Negro” with urgency and even poetry, turning the isolation and alienation of the phrase into a powerful part of his argument for racial inclusion. Black leaders before him did the same thing with the often pejorative “the colored man.” But that was then, and this is now: “Negro” is officially the last of the oppressor appellations, and for many people it’s past time to retire it for good.
Above: Erin Aubry Kaplan
Strong stuff. Only slightly less incendiary than “nigger”? A word with a taint, which represents subjugation? An oppressor appellation?
Which leads me to wonder:
Where was Erin Aubry Kaplan one month ago, when it was revealed that U.S. Democrat Senator Harry Reid had in 2008 discussed Obama’s “Negro dialect”?
At the time, editors were either not soliciting or not greenlighting Kaplan’s views on the topic of the word “Negro.” Instead, they were unleashing opinion columnist Sandy Banks, who ran interference for Reid with her column titled It’s not Harry Reid who should be apologizing, in which Banks declared:
I think the next apology ought to come from Michael Steele — the light-skinned, dialectically flexible African American head of the Republican National Committee.
Above: Sandy Banks
Meanwhile, the news side of the paper carefully portrayed the Reid controversy as nothing more than a series of “attacks” by “Republicans.”
And all along, Erin Aubry Kaplan said nothing.
One suspects that Erin Aubry Kaplan had the same opinion about the term “Negro” last month that she has this month. She thought Harry Reid had uttered a tainted word — an appellation used by oppressors — representing subjugation. A word only slightly less incendiary than “nigger.” Yet, somehow, we didn’t hear from Kaplan — a woman with over 100 published pieces in the paper.
No, we didn’t hear from her . . . at least, not at a time when it would have hurt Harry Reid.
Now that Reid is safe — as safe as he’s gonna get, anyway — it’s now OK for Kaplan to reveal her opinions about the word “Negro.”
She and her editors are, after all, merely following Journalism’s Hypocritical Oath: above all else, do no harm to Democrats.
On Thursday, Los Angeles Times columnist Steve Lopez asked readers to submit candidates for a list of “L.A.’s worst people.” Among those who qualified for this list, either in Lopez’s or his editors’ opinion, are those whose pictures appear in the below screen shot. They are, from left to right, Frank Shaw, the famously corrupt mayor who was recalled in 1938; homicidal madman Charles Manson; disgraced former President Richard Nixon; former LAPD Chief William Parker; Manson family murderer Susan Atkins; serial killer Richard Ramirez, also remembered as the “Night Stalker”; and O.J. Simpson, the Butcher of Brentwood.
An interesting mix, to say the least, but I was puzzled by Parker’s presence among the murderers and corrupt politicians. Lopez explains thus: “Nobody beats former LAPD chief William Parker, said author and former Timesman Bill Boyarsky. ‘He was the most damaging Angeleno of all time’ because of his ‘us-against-them, all-white, anti-minority attitude. That has done more lasting harm to the city than anything.’”
A year ago, responding to a similar smear against Parker from Times columnist Tim Rutten, Glynn Martin, a retired LAPD officer now serving as executive director of the Los Angeles Police Historical Society, wrote that Parker must be understood as a man of his time, and that examining him through the lens of modern sensibilities distorts the memory of a man who integrated the department and cleansed it of its endemic corruption.
Placing Parker in such loathsome company is emblematic of the pettiness one has come to expect from the Los Angeles Times. And yet they wonder why their circulation is declining.
This post gathers links to letters by Ellie Light or Ellie Jeanne Light written to newspapers or other online media sources as discussed in Patterico’s posts here and here. It will be updated with additions and corrections as we find them.
Current totals:
69 publications in 31 states and the District of Columbia.
3 national publications and a Yahoo link.
2 foreign publications.
Please leave links to new Ellie Light letters in the comments to this post.
A woman has written the same letter defending Obama to dozens of publications across the country, getting them published in at least 42 newspapers in 18 states, as well as Politico.com, the Washington Times, and USA Today. And the woman, Ellie Light, has claimed residence in many of these states.
Think there might be some phony Astroturfing there?
In recent weeks, Light has published virtually identical “Letters to the Editor” in support of President Barack Obama in more than a dozen newspapers.Every letter claimed a different residence for Light that happened to be in the newspaper’s circulation area.
“It’s time for Americans to realize that governing is hard work, and that a president can’t just wave a magic wand and fix everything,” said a letter from alleged Philadelphian Ellie Light, that was published in the Jan. 19 edition of The Philadelphia Daily News.
A letter from Light in the Jan. 20 edition of the San Francisco Examiner concluded with an identical sentence, but with an address for Light all the way across the country in Daly City, California.
Variations of Light’s letter ran in Ohio’s Mansfield News Journal on Jan. 13, with Light claiming an address in Mansfield; in New Mexico’s Ruidoso News on Jan. 12, claiming an address in Three Rivers; in South Carolina’s The Sun News on Jan. 18, claiming an address in Myrtle Beach; and in the Daily News Leader of Staunton, Virginia on Jan. 15, claiming an address in Waynesboro. Her publications list includes other papers in Ohio, West Virginia, Maine, Michigan, Iowa, Pennsylvania and California, all claiming separate addresses.
She has more houses than John McCain!
But there are a few more places her little pro-Obama missive appeared, besides those documented.
And in addition to the Californian.com link provided in the Plain Dealer story, listing an address in Salinas, CA, there are other California letters with other California addresses.
On an unrelated note, recall that recently, Glenn Greenwald flagged the fact that Obama’s pal (and head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs) Cass Sunstein recently wrote this paper suggesting something sounding a lot like Astroturfing:
Sunstein advocates that the Government’s stealth infiltration should be accomplished by sending covert agents into “chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups.” He also proposes that the Government make secret payments to so-called “independent” credible voices to bolster the Government’s messaging (on the ground that those who don’t believe government sources will be more inclined to listen to those who appear independent while secretly acting on behalf of the Government).
Who is Ellie Light?
I would like to know.
Wouldn’t you?
P.S. If you find other examples, please leave them in comments with a link. Many more updates in the extended entry.
Lawrence Silver, who represents Ms. Geimer, admonished the judge that officers of the court were obligated by a new victims’ rights provision in the California Constitution to honor her request for an examination of official corruption in the case. The judge said he did not “believe anyone anticipated” the victims’ rights provision, called Marcy’s Law, would be used in support of a defendant like Mr. Polanski, and turned down the request.
The University of Southern California Trojans have prevailed in a trademark suit in which the University of South Carolina Fighting Gamecocks sought to use the letters “SC” on baseball team clothing:
“A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Tuesday upheld a decision last year by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office review board to recognize the University of Southern California’s century-old claim to the logo letters.
***
Scott Edelman, an attorney representing the Los Angeles university, hailed the ruling as protection of the school’s “primary athletic mark” used on team clothing and equipment that brings in significant revenue. Sports logo registrations are not limited to use in team colors, so there was potential for South Carolina merchandise to be mistaken for that of USC, Edelman said.”
Apparently winning wasn’t enough for the Trojans’ attorney, who took the opportunity to talk trash:
“[Edelman] also suggested that the letters were more deservedly linked to the Trojans’ warrior image than to “a goofy little chicken.”
“I think they wanted to move away from the gamecock logo,” Edelman said of the school in the South. “Something that is totally understandable.”
That’s really funny considering what most people think of when they hear the word Trojans.
– DRJ
UPDATE: Thanks to commenter el duderino who provides us with a link to the opinion.
The Massachusetts’ election and the Haitian earthquake have dominated the news and blogs, but there are other stories including one that affects many California readers — Los Angeles rain:
“Street flooding was reported across the region, including in Burbank, the Bixby Knolls section of Long Beach, areas south of Long Beach Airport, as well as Sunland and San Pedro.
The storm ripped part of the roof off an industrial building in Paramount and flooded the southbound 710 Freeway around Alondra Boulevard. Flooding was also reported on the 710 near Willow Street in Long Beach. [Updated at 6:35 p.m.: The California Highway Patrol said the 405 Freeway south is flooded in Long Beach at Spring Street and that traffic was being diverted.]
Other freeways reported less serious flooding, producing a grim evening commute.”
“The Seattle Seahawks, who today fired coach Jim Mora, are close to reaching an agreement with USC’s Pete Carroll to be their next coach, The Times has learned.
***
Although the Seahawks and Carroll are close to a deal, which is believed to be a five-year contract to become president and head coach at $7 million a year, nothing has been signed, said sources close to the situation who are not authorized to speak on his behalf.”
Seattle’s current coach, Jim Mora, was fired today after just one season.
“A source with knowledge of the situation told ESPN.com’s Andy Katz that USC’s notice of infractions included both football and men’s basketball, which may make the timing of Pete Carroll’s departure to the Seattle Seahawks a bit more interesting based on what will come out of the report. The NCAA had folded the two investigations into one so it can review the entire athletic department’s culpability in any possible infractions. That is par for the course in investigations since a failure to monitor can be applied to the entire department.
Per NCAA policy, schools have 90 days to respond to the notice of allegations before a hearing is set on the committee on infractions calendar. That means USC received the notice more than three months ago since a hearing date has been set by the NCAA.The committee on infractions will meet Feb. 19-21 in Tempe, Ariz., and according to a source, USC will be the focus of that meeting with the committee.”
If a conservative wants attention and kudos from Big Media, there’s one sure-fire way to do it: make solid arguments that are rigidly supported by the facts. Ha, ha! I’m joking of course. The actual way to the media’s heart is to harshly criticize conservatives. Meghan McCain and Kathleen Parker discovered months ago that vapid arguments and soft-headed thinking are no obstacle to gaining the Strange New Respect of a liberal media, as long as you’re willing to throw a conservative or two under the bus.
Charles Johnson is the latest darling of Big Media. Later this month he will be the subject of a New York Times Magazine article, and today he is lionized by none other than our old friend James Rainey, in a piece called A blogger’s parting with the right:
Back when he built his Little Green Footballs website into a favorite of the conservative right, Charles Johnson liked to write about the “Loony Left” and “Bush Derangement Syndrome.”
. . . .
Imagine the surprise among conservatives to learn — in a series of postings over nearly the last two years, and then in an official declaration of estrangement a little more than a month ago — that their darling did not love them anymore. Maybe he never did.
Rainey, of course, is the dupe of ACORN who had to eat crow after a video entertainingly destroyed his one-sided account of Hannah Giles and James O’Keefe’s visit to ACORN L.A. offices. Rainey later doubled down, manufacturing a quote by O’Keefe to portray him as a self-admitted truth-bender in the “mold” of Michael Moore.
Who better to lionize Charles Johnson, who increasingly seems to ignore inconvenient truths that get in the way of his own very one-sided world view?
Johnson’s knack for ferreting out fakes and hypocrisy has been impressive. But hyperbole sometimes overshadows his analytic approach. He’s not immune to the throes of passion he has disparaged on both the left and right.
Do you think Rainey is about to tell a story about how Johnson has exaggerated claims against conservatives? For example, how he claimed without proof that conservatives had created a racist Photoshop? Or how he bans conservatives for disagreeing with them? Or how he ignores e-mails from conservatives who correct his factual misstatements?
Uh, no.
He jumped on a lame and misbegotten attempt by conservatives last year to force the Los Angeles Times to release a videotape of Palestinian Americans meeting with then-candidate Barack Obama, even though the paper had promised a confidential source not to do so.
I love this:
I won’t pretend to have read enough of the husky, pony-tailed blogger’s work to give a full report card on his tactics, or politics.
Translation: I don’t know a damned thing about Charles Johnson. But who can resist a story about “A blogger’s parting with the right”?
Is Charles Johnson the new Meghan McCain? Or the new Kathleen Parker?
Today Andrew Breitbart launches Big Journalism, an ambitious site designed to take on Big Media in a new and comprehensive way. Andrew was kind enough to allow me to post something on Opening Day. He asked me to use the platform to brag on myself a little, and to talk about the value (and frustrations) of media criticism. I’ll ask DRJ to add the link when it’s available, but in the meantime, here’s an excerpt from the draft I submitted last night:
[D]on’t get the idea that media criticism is a rewarding experience, filled with triumphs, as the critic forces his local newspaper to correct its mistakes. More often, it feels a little like sprinting into a brick wall head first, backing up, and doing it again. And again.
Large newspapers like the Los Angeles Times have a hidebound, snooty culture. Many of the individuals who work there are decent, professional people trying to do the best job they can. But the culture of self-satisfaction is pervasive — as honest staffers will admit to you privately. Big Media editors think they are better than you — hell, they know they are better than you. Matt Welch and Tim Cavanaugh, who both worked at The Times, both say that it was a common joke for staffers to wish that they could just “fire our readers.”
Here’s the thing: increasingly, readers are saying: “You can’t fire us! We quit!”
It should be an interesting site. I plan to contribute on a sporadic basis.
I think Breitbart usually launches these sites at around 9 a.m. Pacific., but nobody told me exactly when the site is going live today. Just keep clicking on Big Journalism.
2010. One day down, one correction from the L.A. Times obtained:
ACORN: An article in Section A on Sept. 19 about the individuals whose video sting prompted the ACORN scandal incorrectly said one of them had targeted the community activist group because its voter registration drives bring Latinos and African Americans to the polls. Although the organization registers people mostly from those groups, James E. O’Keefe did not specifically mention them. The article was first published in the Washington Post, which published a correction on Sept. 22. The Times had overlooked the correction.
The time has come to document another year’s worth of bias, omissions, and distortions at the L.A. Times — all gathered together in one handy post. As always, there’s something about seeing all this stuff in one place that really opens your eyes.
This year, L.A. Times editors whitewashed (and botched basic facts about) the ACORN scandal; protected their hero Barack Obama; sneered at tea parties; openly pushed health care reform; gave space to someone lauding killer Ted Kennedy’s “moral largeness”; hid evidence of the Fort Hood shooter’s Muslim ties and then flushed the evidence; made up a quote from John Cornyn and then flushed the evidence; hid conflicts of interest from multiple op-ed contributors; plagiarized Wikipedia; eliminated its local news section; had four rounds of layoffs; suffered from plummeting circulation; and committed numerous high-profile editing errors.
To name just some of their problems.
Oh: and they wrote numerous detailed corrections in response to my complaints. As they do every year.
Liberal bias? Check. Rank incompetence? Check.
Without further ado, here is my seventh annual review of the Los Angeles Times, otherwise known as the Los Angeles Dog Trainer.
WHITEWASHING THE ACORN SCANDAL
Above: James O’Keefe and Hannah Giles
In September, James O’Keefe and Hannah Giles released eye-opening undercover videos showing ACORN workers at numerous offices helping the couple with a purported prostitution ring. This newspaper whitewashed the ACORN scandal right from the beginning, portraying it as a “conservative” complaint, utterly failing to mention the fact that Giles and O’Keefe told ACORN employees that they were pimping out young girls aged 13-15 smuggled in from El Salvador.
Then Peter Dreier wrote a fact-challenged op-ed claiming that Giles and O’Keefe had received assistance at only two ACORN offices. (The documented number was at least five at the time the op-ed appeared.) Dreier also incorrectly claimed that “not a single person who signed a phony name on a registration form ever actually voted” — although one person who did was later convicted only of false registration and not voter fraud.
[UPDATE: I don't consider Goldberg to be part of any deliberate "whitewash." I think he gave op-ed space to someone who is either dishonest or plain stupid -- and then lacked the single pair of conservative editorial eyes necessary to catch the blatant misstatements in Dreier's piece.]
But the funniest material came from hapless L.A. Times columnist James Rainey.
In September, Rainey wrote a column in which he uncritically quoted ACORN worker Lavelle Stewart suggesting that she had turned Hannah Giles and James O’Keefe out of her office. Rainey hadn’t bothered to contact Breitbart — or Giles or O’Keefe — to ask their side of the story. I predicted that Rainey would end up with egg on his face. When Breitbart started hinting that he had damning video, my prediction started looking better and better. And sure enough, the very person Rainey had uncritically quoted turned out to be the star of Giles and O’Keefe’s latest ACORN video:
But it didn’t end there. Rainey then wrote an ass-covering column that minimized his error — and which included a purported quote from O’Keefe. After I investigated the source of the quote, it turned out to be largely fabricated.
As if all this wasn’t enough, the paper let stand another fabricated quote from O’Keefe, which was originally reported by the Washington Post, and reprinted by the L.A. Times. The Post corrected the error back in September. The Times still hasn’t.
SYCOPHANTIC COVERAGE OF OUR HERO BARACK OBAMA
The paper uncritically reported that opposition to Obama’s health care plan was fueled by angry mobs of right-wing extremists. Typical of editors’ attitude was this strawman from a front-page “news analysis” which claimed Obama “has seen the healthcare debate sidetracked by false warnings that government ‘death panels’ would be employed to snuff out Grandma.” Naturally, genuine concerns about rationing of health care were not discussed in this polemic.
The paper gave op-ed space to someone who implied that government can cover our health care — and it won’t cost us a dime! Because government money appears magically, out of nowhere!
When Obama held a town hall meeting on health care, he declared: “I have not said that I was a single-payer supporter.” This was an easily provable lie, and editors failed to tell readers about it.
The paper dutifully ran a picture of doctors in white coats — an image designed to lend credibility to Obama’s health care plan — and didn’t tell readers that the White House had passed out the coats beforehand to any doctor not already wearing one.
Editors forgot to mention Obama’s little costume trick
When a controversy arose about Truther and Obama appointee Van Jones, the paper dismissed it as “a firestorm that raged almost entirely on conservative talk shows and websites.” Well, sure: the print version of the paper did indeed ignore the controversy until Jones resigned — an indication that it was indeed a legitimate story that the paper had simply refused to cover. The same pattern held with NEA communications director Yosi Sergant: editors hid the controversy from their print readers right up until he resigned.
Official gusher Faye Fiore called the Obamas’ date night a “fascination and an inspiration.” She breathlessly declared the Obamas “impossibly elegant” — forgetting to mention that the evening was impossibly expensive.
Above: reporter Faye Fiore forgot to mention that you and I are footing the bill for the Obamas’ “impossible elegance”
Under Bush, unemployment was called “unemployment.” Under Obama, L.A. Times editors came up with a different name, which I am not making up: “funemployment.” iowahawk had a field day with that one.
When Obama violated his pledge to make bills available for review for five days, editors overlooked it. But hey, the bill wasn’t that important — it was just a stimulus bill costing almost a trillion dollars. The paper groused that Republicans had failed to participate in the drafting of the bill to give it a bipartisan sheen — all because Republicans failed to treat things like an increased government role in health care as the “consensus item” that the editors falsely claimed it was.
After Obama repeatedly described as “unprecedented” a business-as-usual plan to root out waste in government, L.A. Times stenographers described the plan as unprecedented!
The paper wrote a slobbering article about Obama solving a diplomatic crisis — with one word!
The editors’ mental picture of Obama
Barack Obama: is there anything he can’t do??
Before Obama took office, editors wanted to portray the job situation as bleak. So they told readers that job losses were at their highest level since 1945 — but failed to mention that this figure represented absolute numbers, and misleadingly failed to reflect the explosion in the country’s population since then.
Robert Gibbs told reporters that Obama did not teach constitutional law. Tell that to the editors of the L.A. Times, who had claimed otherwise numerous times.
On the positive side of the ledger, the paper reported it when the Obama administration warned a Democrat strategist to stay off Fox News.
Above: the results of Ted Kennedy’s “moral largeness”
ANTI-REPUBLICAN BIAS AND ANTI-TEA PARTY SENTIMENT
The paper used loaded language such as saying Republicans would “snipe” at Obama as he swam “against the partisan tide” — as layoffs “add[ed] urgency to the need to agree on a stimulus plan.”
Stimulus plan good . . . tea parties bad. And inconsequential. When KFI’s John 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 “bcc” line, meaning he shared each angry reader’s e-mail address with all the others. If you’re thinking: “What a moron!” then you have plenty of company.
When they did cover tea parties, they portrayed them as a uniquely Republican phenomenon that carried risks for Republicans — ignoring the fact that tea-party attendees are also largely fed up with the Republican party.
The L.A. Times thinks these people are all Republicans
When the government produced a ridiculous report that appeared to declare conservative sentiments to be a worrisome phenomenon that should concern law enforcement, did the L.A. Times worry about the obvious chilling effect on political beliefs? No, it parroted the phantom concern about those damn violent right-wingers.
The paper resurrected its oft-repeated canard that George W. Bush came to power through the strength of a Supreme Court ruling — rather than the way he actually did: by winning the 2000 election.
When Major Nidal Malik Hasan perpetrated a terrorist act of mass murder at Fort Hood, the L.A. Times’s initial story had no mention of the shooter’s religion, his alleged rants against U.S. involvement in Iraq, his alleged approval of suicide bombings, or the allegations that he was shouting something in Arabic as he shot. But the paper did make sure to include irrelevant statistics concerning suicides at Army bases due to deployments to the war. After Instapundit linked my post and the story became an obvious embarrassment to the paper, editors did what they generally do with embarrassing stories: they flushed it down the memory hole.
Editors took on an ICE policy of deporting illegal aliens with whom they came into contact — distorting the policy to falsely suggest that ICE was targeting innocent illegals. Internal ICE memos discovered by a reader of mine proved that the paper had distorted ICE policy.
Just to make it clear which side of the immigration debate the L.A. Times is on, the paper told a sob story about a man being deported for the minor crime of trying to kill someone.
RACE/POLITICAL CORRECTNESS
In 2005, the editors sanctimoniously announced that there was no reason to segregate state prisoners by race. I like to remind them of this every time there is a major race riot at a prison, and this year was no exception.
One thing that has always frustrated me is the way that the paper portrays good police work as racism. A great example can be found here, where editors complained about numerous examples of black men being stopped by police because other black men had committed crimes. Whose fault is that?
Where the story with the fabricated quote went
(Credit: Freedom Now! blog)
When Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor got caught saying something very impolitic — that courts make policy — editors suggested that she was joking. But she wasn’t.
Just as the paper slammed Kozinski, it protected liberal federal judge Stephen Reinhardt, deciding not to tell readers when the Supreme Court declared that Reinhardt had dissembled in a death penalty appeal.
CRIME
The paper’s coverage of the Roman Polanski case was an object lesson in the heights — and depths — of which the paper is capable of reaching. Starting with the depths: Patrick Goldstein suggested that the pedophile and child rapist should not be held accountable because it would cost too much money to sentence him. After a considerable backlash, Goldstein implausibly asserted that Hollywood doesn’t really support Polanski — a claim easily refuted with video of the standing ovation he received for winning the Oscar for “The Pianist.”
A front-page headline claimed that Polanski had merely been “accused” of the sexual assault — when, in fact, he had pled guilty to unlawful sex with a minor.
The paper told readers about a decree from federal judges that 43,000 prisoners be released from state prisons. But editors neglected to mention that the judges were all appointed by Democrats.
The paper reported on a 19-year-old rape/murder being solved by a hit from a DNA database — but neglected to mention that editors had crusaded against exactly these kinds of databases.
The paper trumpeted the ACLU’s crusade to empty Los Angeles area jails — but failed to remind readers that this would undoubtedly result in more innocent people dying.
The paper swallowed whole a ridiculous liberal claim about the cost of the death penalty. (Editors have a history of making similar claims themselves.)
As is its habit, the paper trumpeted the bona fides of an alleged anti-gang worker who is really a criminal. This time, it was Alex Sanchez.
The paper consistently reports on the number of officer-involved shootings, implying that they are the fault of law enforcement — even when they clearly aren’t.
On a positive note, the paper gave a nice write-up to our friend, DDA Debbie Knaan.
Editors have this habit of soliciting comments from my guest poster Jack Dunphy and then refusing to publish them because he uses a pseudonym. They did it again this year, and I think it’s pretty rude.
In a typically fatuous column about the state budget, our friend Nofanofcablecos became Nofanofaccuratestatistics — claiming that the California population had increased by 30% over 10 years. He only overstated it by 100%. Close enough for L.A. Times work? Surprisingly, no. I complained, and the paper issued a correction. The correction was incorrect and misleading — i.e. par for the course.
Hiltzik is such a crazy leftist, he actually suggests that the government should prevent banks from repaying TARP money, so that the government can retain control over the banks.
Hiltzik also claimed to be in favor of competition for health care — yet at the same time, he favors a single-payer system. Huh?
JAMES RAINEY
Above: the hapless James Rainey
We already roundly mocked James Rainey above for his dishonest and ridiculous coverage of the ACORN scandal. But I’m not done with him yet.
Rainey railed against Fox News — yet was mostly silent about MSNBC and totally gave a pass to CNN.
Rainey sanctimoniously proclaimed that there had been too much coverage of Miss California — in a column about Miss California. Complete with a picture of Miss California.
Jack Dunphy recalled Tim Rutten’s complaint that officer concern over release of private information was “preposterous.” It seemed less preposterous after it actually happened. He’s such a shill, he even uncritically accepted the Obama administration’s “created or saved” nonsense.
Tim Rutten argued that the criticism of the president was violent and hysterical — but somehow forgot to note that there had been violent and hysterical criticism of Bush. I reminded him.
Yes, Mr. Rutten, President Bush got violent and hysterical protests too
In a single day, the paper managed to confuse LAPD officers and LAPD Explorers (members of a youth program); confuse the concept of a “radius” with that of a circle’s area; and misstate the weight of water by over 50%. They soon corrected the error about Explorers and officers.
The paper told readers that Obama had “dawned” a pair of jeans (later identified as “mom jeans”) to incompetently toss out the first pitch at a baseball game.
I hope you enjoyed the post. If you’re interested, I have done six previous annual reviews of the newspaper. The previous annual reviews can be found at these links:
UPDATE: Thanks to John Hinderaker at Power Line for the link and the kind words.
UPDATE x2 1-1-10: The paper today corrected the fabricated O’Keefe quote that had been published in the Washington Post. They have yet to correct the fabricated O’Keefe quote appearing in James Rainey’s column. Details here.
nk on Erin Aubry Kaplan, Contributing Editor to the L.A. Times: Now That Reid Is Past the "Negro Dialect" Controversy, Let Me Tell You What I Think of the Word "Negro"
nk on Erin Aubry Kaplan, Contributing Editor to the L.A. Times: Now That Reid Is Past the "Negro Dialect" Controversy, Let Me Tell You What I Think of the Word "Negro"
redc1c4 on Eric Boehlert Owes Jim Treacher a Correction
SPQR on Eric Boehlert Owes Jim Treacher a Correction
scott on Erin Aubry Kaplan, Contributing Editor to the L.A. Times: Now That Reid Is Past the "Negro Dialect" Controversy, Let Me Tell You What I Think of the Word "Negro"
The statements made on this web site reflect the personal opinions of the author. They are not made in any official capacity, and do not represent the opinions of the author's employer.
