Ah, the Benefits of Being an L.A. Times Non-Subscriber
I cancelled my subscription to the L.A. Times yesterday, so today was our first day without the dead-trees version of the paper.
I’m still bashing them by reading the articles online. And I was even able to do a “Power of the Jump” post by looking at a .pdf of the front page of their print edition.
The only differences: I don’t have a newspaper to haul to the recycling bin. And we’re saving the subscription money (though in reality, that was a piddling amount).
Oh — and now that I’m not supporting people who make arrogant decisions that help terrorists, I feel a lot less dirty.
I got up today, opened my front door and what I saw made me very happy: the wonderfully thick Sunday edition of the LA Times. I spent a good deal of the morning leafing through every section, enjoying Sports, California, calendar, etc… probably a little bit more than normally, knowing you were not able to partake in this pleasure, having to squint at a computer screen, all to make a point. Happy squinting.
alert reader hank k. (943508) — 6/25/2006 @ 8:54 pmDon’t sprain your back walking it to the recycle bin — and enjoy your support of those who help the terrorists.
Patterico (50c3cd) — 6/25/2006 @ 9:01 pmYou cancelled? I bet they don’t stop sending the paper. OR taking you off their subscription roles.
So you don’t pay them. That’s it.
But you’ll spend 39-cents per stamp, and time on the telephone TELLING them you’re cancelled. Makes no difference. You’ll still get their paper delivered.
Carol Herman (7ccd8d) — 6/25/2006 @ 9:16 pmHank K: Get a 21 inch monitor and a pair of glasses and you won’t have to squint. I can rear back in a nice chair and read any paper that has an on line addition. Cancelled all of the print editions a year ago when they showed their a** and became totally anti-american and traitors. Now i can immediately debunk any lie i read from the antique MSM with a few clicks and they print about 99% lies. If they correct mistakes as the claim, then they are lies and not mistakes because there’s never any corrections.
Scrapiron (9f37aa) — 6/25/2006 @ 9:47 pmAnother benefit to cancelling – you don’t have to go into your huge Newspaper Recycling Tower in the corner and “ruffle” the issues up a bit before guests come over. You know what I mean. When you get several issues in a row you just don’t care to read, you toss the perfectly folded things onto the stack so it stacks neatly. But you sure don’t want friends to see that you subscribe but don’t even open the paper. So you mangle it so it looks like you do.
Wesson (c20d28) — 6/25/2006 @ 10:10 pmI will not be cancelling my subscription to the LA Times — I can’t. Twenty years ago, I got fed-up with the LAT’s agenda-driven reportage and cancelled. Never considered going back.
It’s been a good couple of decades.
However, I wrote an e-mail to my less-political family and friends describing the situation and asking them to cancel. I’ve offered to defray any losses their cancellation cause. Hit the bastards where it’ll hurt them: the pocketbook.
Dan (17def3) — 6/25/2006 @ 10:21 pmWesson–
Ouch. Got a pile right here. Nice little African-looking basket of pristine Wall street Journals.
See-Dubya (afdbd2) — 6/25/2006 @ 11:04 pmNothin’ wrong with that!
Patterico (50c3cd) — 6/25/2006 @ 11:06 pmMy fish-wrap edition of the Sunday NYT is getting nice and soaked in a thunderstorm on my back porch. Sorry. Can’t cancel it. My wife likes it. It’s her house, I only live in it. We only get the Sunday edition, anyway, and I use it for masking when I paint. Have you seen the prices for masking tape and “red paper” at Home De[s]pot lately? Also, there was a very good article by David Brooks on Kos today which I could not access online.
nk (956ea1) — 6/25/2006 @ 11:19 pmHeh. We had a drunk contractor who talked about the Home Despot. (That’s not you, is it??)
Patterico (50c3cd) — 6/25/2006 @ 11:32 pmNo. I am a lawyer, not a contractor. I am a decent carpenter and painter but I do not do it professionally. (I have not always, nor exclusively, been a lawyer.) I have had a couple of glasses of wine but I don’t think I’m drunk. (I also think that I am a musician but I cannot provide corroboration.)
nk (956ea1) — 6/25/2006 @ 11:54 pmNext Step.
Determine the 3 largest Dog Trainer advertisers. Boycott their products and tell them why, very loudly. You might also tell them that in the future they’ll get better results advertising with BlogAds and PJMedia.
RiverRat (54c18d) — 6/26/2006 @ 12:08 amyou’ve been calling it the “dog trainer” for how long, and only just now cancelled? are you aware the times still gets revenue when you look at it online? the banner advertisers pay the paper based on the number of unique “eyeballs” viewing the site. considering that they’re saving printing and distribution costs, your decision may actually have added to their bottom line, and if the chandlers ever look at your blog (unlikely), i’m sure they get a hoot from it.
assistant devil's advocate (3ed6c5) — 6/26/2006 @ 8:07 amnevertheless, your decision was correct strictly from the environmental perspective, saving trees and energy too. the big loser in your decision isn’t the paper, it’s the kid who delivers the paper. most newspaper carriers are not employees of the paper, but independent contractors, usually not out of their teens. maybe he/she lives in your neighborhood, is saving up for college, and you represent 1/60 or so of the handle. when you explain your decision to this kid, my suggestion would be to emphasize the environmental reasons, not the political reasons. if you’re stuck somewhere locally with a dead battery and no jumper cables, you might need his/her help someday.
Patterico:
I’d just echo what Carol said (comment #3). Just because you call the LAT and tell them you want to cancel doesn’t mean you’ve cancelled. Your subscription to the LAT will be cancelled when THEY decide to cancel you — probably some time after you are placed into collection for your non-payment of the newspaper you told them you no longer want. If you actually managed to get the Times to stop delivery on the first call, you are among the truely blessed.
Sean P (256007) — 6/26/2006 @ 10:28 am“the big loser in your decision isn’t the paper, it’s the kid who delivers the paper. most newspaper carriers are not employees of the paper, but independent contractors, usually not out of their teens. maybe he/she lives in your neighborhood, is saving up for college, and you represent 1/60 or so of the handle.”
Where in America are newspapers still delivered by kids?! Here in Fort Worth, they’ve been delivered by 30-yr old guys in pickups for 20 years. I doubt they are using the money to go to college.
sharon (03e82c) — 6/26/2006 @ 1:10 pmI just cancelled my subscription today. Unlike Patterico’s experience, they didn’t make too much of an effort to keep me. Perhaps this is a sign that they don’t particularly care, but perhaps it shows that a lot of us are leaving and they no longer think it is worth it to try and convince us to stay. I now will only get my local newspaper, the Daily Breeze, which has the virtue of a center-right editorial perspective (don’t worry lefties, the Breeze carries the columns of Maureen Dowd, Bob Herbert, Paul Krugman, Nick Kristoff, and all other obnoxious NYTimes liberals, so I will still be regularly exposed to that worldview).
JVW (d667c9) — 6/26/2006 @ 1:14 pmAnd regarding ADA’s comment about the delivery person, my LA Times “paperboy” is a 40-something gentleman of unsure immigration status (he does not speak very much English) who delivers in tandem with his wife. I do feel sorry for them, but in a free market society eveyone is affected by the decisions made by the consumer.
JVW (d667c9) — 6/26/2006 @ 1:18 pmYes what neighborhood does ADA live in that his newspaper delivery guy is a teenage kid saving for college, who looks suspiciously like Ron Howard in his “Opie” days?
My delivery guy lives in Pomona forty miles from my house in Glendale. You can bet that his immigration documents are either nonexistent or phonies; his wife does speak enough English (or write enough English) to hit us up for a tip at Christmas time. But while he’s no Opie, he’s out there trying to make a living and more power to him. On the other hand, so is the guy peddling fake Gucci bags and Rolex watches on street corners downtown– i.e. trying to make a living selling fakes. And my delivery guy is trying to make a living selling a fake newspaper.
Mike Myers (28fa0a) — 6/26/2006 @ 3:22 pmCompared to the damage the Liar in Chief has done the LA Times is nothing. Bush is responsible for the deaths of 2500 US soldiers wounding several thousand more and tens of thousands of Iraqis as well. If this society had any morals at all they would had cancelled their subscription to his littany of lies a long time ago.
charlie (e16458) — 6/26/2006 @ 3:27 pmWesson Oil wrote:
First of all, only liberals would look in the recycling bin. (They probably snoop in your medicine chest in the bathroom, too.) Second, only liberals would even use the recycling bin!
Dana (1d5902) — 6/26/2006 @ 3:42 pmWow.
actus (6234ee) — 6/26/2006 @ 3:44 pmCharlie wrote:
Well, Charlie, while only God can know what would have happened if we had just left Saddam Hussein in power, the math says that the greater probability is that more Iraqis would have died had we not invaded.
The more likely event is that we actually saved Iraqi lives by invading Iraq and deposing Saddam Hussein.
Dana (1d5902) — 6/26/2006 @ 3:46 pmAw, it’s always so nice to get one of the derranged Bush-bashers to weigh in. “Bush lied while people died” — isn’t that how it goes, Charlie? Gosh, it would be so much better if only the Husseins were still raping and killing their fellow Iraqis and funding groups like Hamas while Al-Zarqawi worked on more advanced terror initiatives. You can spare me the lecture on the “morals” of “this society,” fella.
JVW (d667c9) — 6/26/2006 @ 3:47 pmI’m willing to bet my non-existent subscription to the LAT that Charlie thinks abortion is ok, but gets his panties in a wad about George Bush.
sharon (fecb65) — 6/26/2006 @ 7:38 pmIts better late than never. Atlast you cancelled the subscription, which you should ve done years back. But no matters, these fucking owners are’nt going to leave you so easily, you ll get the newspaper delievered each day, though you remind them n number of times of your disinterest in the same.
Priscillawhite (24ec5a) — 6/29/2006 @ 4:35 amWelcome to the club! You should now introduce yourself to the delicious benefit of the guilty pleasure of RE-CONFIRMING YOUR CANCELLATION everytime they publish something so toxic that it finds its way into your newy cleansed space. There are few things more enjoyable than to stuff the LAT inbox with yet another e-mail beginning with “Dear Sirs, I know I cancelled my subscription x years ago and have not resubscribed, but I just want to recancel to make sure it is not reactivated accidentally. I originally cancelled my subscription because of (fill in the blank) but can’t seem to rid myself of your toxic and obnoxious output and so…..” You get the drift. If more of us non-suscribers did this regularly, maybe we could account for 80% or more of the “cancellation” requests requiring that they delay some of their editorial staff reductions because they need the manpower to sort through their e-mail. Just a thought.
Phil Boucher (190f8d) — 7/1/2006 @ 7:40 am