L.A. Times Front Page Mentions Nothing About Passage of PelosiCare; UPDATE: Yes It Does; Paper Just Has Wrong Front-Page Image on Site
Did the House of Representatives really just pass PelosiCare last night? Is it true that she got only 2 more votes than the bare majority required to pass? Did the House really pass an amendment that would ensure that federal dollars would not be used for abortion in any new health care initiative?
I thought that all happened. But I can’t find any evidence of it on the front page of the Los Angeles Times.
Am I wrong to think that this is all relatively big news? I mean, not as important as the Konocti resort, or an advertisement for marketloftsauction.com, or a blurb about the return of the biker look to fashion. These are the things that are on today’s Los Angeles Times front page (.pdf).
But nothing about health care?
Really?
I don’t even see this as an issue of ideology; just basic competence. Were the people who determined the front page’s layout on drugs, or what? One too many visits to the medicinal marijuana clinic, perhaps?
Whatever they’re smoking over there, it must be good stuff. Because this is just bizarre.
UPDATE: Commenters are telling me that the physical paper has the normal stories (and spin) you would expect. The link above is what the paper has listed on its site for today’s front page, and it’s dated November 8, 2009, which is today. I got to it by clicking a link that reads: “Page one from today’s paper of November 8, 2009. (PDF file).” But as Kevin Murphy explains:
What you have there is obviously the Saturday-Sunday newsstand wrapper that is usually supplemented with the “real” Saturday front page somewhere inside.
Well, that’s reassuring. Because this really seemed beyond weird. Thanks to Kevin for clearing that up.
So the bottom line is: when they say it’s “Page one from today’s paper” — it’s not. I should have known better than to trust them . . .
Probably smoking the same stuff as the guy thinking he’s gonna get a downtown loft for $140,000.
Living in downtown LA. That’s just silly. There’s nothing there but scary people and government.
happyfeet (f62c43) — 11/8/2009 @ 4:47 pmPlease! It takes time for the LA Times staff of editors and news screeners to await the delivery of the New York Times, allowing them to identify what officially specified narrative is fit to print. And as if such important people work in the wee hours of the night (let alone after 3:30 in the afternoon!).
Next you’ll be claiming that people in their pajamas sitting in front of a home PC will be capable of reporting news…
HatlessHessian (cca288) — 11/8/2009 @ 4:59 pmYou must have any early edition, the newsrack where I buy my Sunday papers had a front-page article on the passage of PelosiCrap!
AD - RtR/OS! (7df9d7) — 11/8/2009 @ 5:18 pm“any” = “an”
AD - RtR/OS! (7df9d7) — 11/8/2009 @ 5:18 pmSorry!
They are just waiting on the approved narrative from MSNBC, Olbergasm, MadCow, and TalkingPointsMemo.
JD (7a6b3b) — 11/8/2009 @ 5:22 pmThey are just waiting on the approved narrative from MSNBC, Olbergasm, MadCow, and TalkingPointsMemo, and magoo. Especially magoo. You need that douchenozzle’s approval to do anything.
JD (7a6b3b) — 11/8/2009 @ 5:23 pmI figured that they would mention that the bill passed, mention that 220 voted for it, and then neglect to mention that 215 voted against it.
The LA Times – exceeding expectations!
JayC (0a3ab7) — 11/8/2009 @ 5:30 pmThe paper that landed on my doorstep (old habit, dies hard) is almost entirely different, and includes all the
spinnews you’d expect.What you have there is obviously the Saturday-Sunday newsstand wrapper that is usually supplemented with the “real” Saturday front page somewhere inside.
Kevin Murphy (3c3db0) — 11/8/2009 @ 5:31 pmSame with the UT in San Deigo …. Nothing ZIP NADA! (not that anybody reads the rag anyway)
SteveCan (d868b1) — 11/8/2009 @ 5:33 pmYou can actually see it here. No explanation why they got the Sunday supplement version on the main website.
Kevin Murphy (3c3db0) — 11/8/2009 @ 5:37 pmYes, Kevin, that’s the front-page that stared at me in the news-rack this AM
AD - RtR/OS! (7df9d7) — 11/8/2009 @ 5:42 pm(two of them, in fact, absolutely full, at 9AM, at a Denny’s).
The El Paso Times has gone to this model, too. It puts a few human interest stories on the website and offers the “real news” in the print edition and online (pay) E-edition.
DRJ (dff2ca) — 11/8/2009 @ 5:45 pmThanks, Kevin. I updated the post.
I thought that seemed beyond odd. But it was the current front-page image, and was dated today . . . And I don’t subscribe to this rag any more, so that’s the only way I can tell.
Patterico (64318f) — 11/8/2009 @ 5:47 pmPerhaps they have an issue with the circulation drop and are considering dropping the print edition from the website entirely. The page I linked above would suggest that.
Not that anyone in their right mind would pay $12.95 a month for the e-copy. Maybe $12.95 a YEAR…..
Kevin Murphy (3c3db0) — 11/8/2009 @ 6:01 pmWhat if they passed their bill and *nobody* knew? Is that really their plan?
ras (a44e13) — 11/8/2009 @ 6:39 pmCan someone PLEASE tell me why the LAT is obsessed with Gustavo Dadamel. He makes their (online, at least) front page once every other weel.
lee (cae7a3) — 11/8/2009 @ 8:36 pm“week”, I meant to say.
lee (cae7a3) — 11/8/2009 @ 8:37 pmlee,
I had to research your comments to ascertain that you’re not the “lee” who is kind of a dick who has posted here before (but who is mostly a fan of another mostly-defunct blog).
To answer your question, Dudamel has that dreamy hair. Got it?
Patterico (64318f) — 11/9/2009 @ 12:13 amHmm, I don’t know anything about the other lee. I used to visit this site occasionally when it was linked (or referenced) by national review or Hotair. I visit more regularly now. Only John and Ken does a more satisfying job debating the LAT editorials.
I’m Asian and not from the south, if that helps me distinguish from the other, more sisnister “lee”.
lee (cae7a3) — 11/9/2009 @ 1:32 amI just… I don’t think mostly defunct is apt. It’s in some ways dormant yes but you’ll see. You’ll all see.
And lee is not a dick he’s funny and nice. I think he may have just been expressing his point of view in a straightforward if possibly abrasive and even a touch strident manner is all.
happyfeet (f62c43) — 11/9/2009 @ 7:07 amI have not been insouciant in a while. I need to work on that.
JD (5e5cad) — 11/9/2009 @ 7:20 aminsouciant is the new sardonic I think
happyfeet (f62c43) — 11/9/2009 @ 7:28 amInsouciant is a good thing. I strive for insouciance.
JD (5e5cad) — 11/9/2009 @ 7:56 am