RSS Feeds
Is The Times its own worst enemy?
1.
I stopped buying the Times a long time ago for various reasons but one of the most recent is their refusal to see Walter Moore as a contender for Villaraigosa. Walter Moore IS running against Villaraigosa, and has been for some time, yet in a recent piece he was totally ignored.
Others sent a note to the writer about this fact and, of course, we hear nothing.
Also, how the Times fails to report on the corruption of Los Angeles, truly leaving us a less safe city for all.
I so distrust the Times that everytime they have a "voting guide" I simply do the opposite of everything they say. They are that dumb, IMO.
2. This is a hell of your own making. There are important stories that need to be critically reported: city hall corruption, incompetent city pols, illegal alien fraud, the growth of gang-infested neighborhoods, lack of police personnel to safeguard citizens, etc. And please, no more sob stories about Pablo and Maria being deported - illegals don't read the Times- they can't speak English.
3. The absolute biggest crying shame of all this is that all the Times' problems are self inflicted, and they don't want to solve the problems.
4. Solve the problem: Sell to David Geffen.
5. I'm a Republican, but I've always thought the Times under the Chicago Tribune banner, has shown a neoconservative bias. I consider the columns of Josh Goldberg, Max Boot and Zev Chafets, pure war mongering.
6. Marc wrties about the LA Times' loss of subscribers over the last 4 years, " Maybe, just maybe, the answer has to do with a perception that the paper is agenda-driven and smugly dismissive of its readers' views." Hey, I had subscribed for most of 20 years, and then I stopped 10 years ago because the LA Times was (and still is) agenda driven. I newspaper which is supposed to be a high calibre paper should not have an agenda (other than reporting facts objectively) regardless of the readers' views on any particular issue.
7. Way too many articles focused on Darfur/Sudan/ East Mongolia/ Timbuktu and other far of and obscure lands. I live in CA and care more about what goes on here. The whole Tenny Pierce fiasco at LAFD is the type of story that should be broken by the TIMES and reported with the detail that John and Ken gave it. Lose the PC glasses as well.
8. The Times initiated hang up calls to my home twice a day when my daughter was in and out of the hospital dying----I will never frogive them for that. What goes around comes around---they deserve their demise as a news giver.
9. Since this has devolved into a simple referendum on the paper: I LIKE THE TIMES. It's simply the best print news source west of Chicago. And other sources--blogs, TV news--are sound-bite oriented. The Times isn't perfect, any more than is the NY Times or the Washington Post (which are really the only other genuinely national papers), but it's a pleasure to have--one of the things that make life in Los Angeles cosmopolitan, not provincial.
10. I'm a Democrat but even I get irritated with the liberal bias of the Times. For instance, I've noticed that the Times will do an article on illegal immigrants and simply refer to them as "immigrants" throughout the article, as if there is absolutely no distinction between legal and illegal immigrants. What's up with that? When the Times does this, it's just as obvious a form of covert editorializing as is the kind of journalism that Fox News provides. It's offensive and it pisses me off. I can only imagine how a Republican might react to it.
Submitted by: Soliel
2. This is a hell of your own making. There are important stories that need to be critically reported: city hall corruption, incompetent city pols, illegal alien fraud, the growth of gang-infested neighborhoods, lack of police personnel to safeguard citizens, etc. And please, no more sob stories about Pablo and Maria being deported - illegals don't read the Times- they can't speak English.
Submitted by: R u listening?
3. The absolute biggest crying shame of all this is that all the Times' problems are self inflicted, and they don't want to solve the problems.
Submitted by: PCD
4. Solve the problem: Sell to David Geffen.
Submitted by: Bernie Quigley
5. I'm a Republican, but I've always thought the Times under the Chicago Tribune banner, has shown a neoconservative bias. I consider the columns of Josh Goldberg, Max Boot and Zev Chafets, pure war mongering.
Submitted by: Seth
6. Marc wrties about the LA Times' loss of subscribers over the last 4 years, " Maybe, just maybe, the answer has to do with a perception that the paper is agenda-driven and smugly dismissive of its readers' views." Hey, I had subscribed for most of 20 years, and then I stopped 10 years ago because the LA Times was (and still is) agenda driven. I newspaper which is supposed to be a high calibre paper should not have an agenda (other than reporting facts objectively) regardless of the readers' views on any particular issue.
Submitted by: Ira Siegel
7. Way too many articles focused on Darfur/Sudan/ East Mongolia/ Timbuktu and other far of and obscure lands. I live in CA and care more about what goes on here. The whole Tenny Pierce fiasco at LAFD is the type of story that should be broken by the TIMES and reported with the detail that John and Ken gave it. Lose the PC glasses as well.
Submitted by: buz
8. The Times initiated hang up calls to my home twice a day when my daughter was in and out of the hospital dying----I will never frogive them for that. What goes around comes around---they deserve their demise as a news giver.
Submitted by: Betty Walter
9. Since this has devolved into a simple referendum on the paper: I LIKE THE TIMES. It's simply the best print news source west of Chicago. And other sources--blogs, TV news--are sound-bite oriented. The Times isn't perfect, any more than is the NY Times or the Washington Post (which are really the only other genuinely national papers), but it's a pleasure to have--one of the things that make life in Los Angeles cosmopolitan, not provincial.
Submitted by: John
10. I'm a Democrat but even I get irritated with the liberal bias of the Times. For instance, I've noticed that the Times will do an article on illegal immigrants and simply refer to them as "immigrants" throughout the article, as if there is absolutely no distinction between legal and illegal immigrants. What's up with that? When the Times does this, it's just as obvious a form of covert editorializing as is the kind of journalism that Fox News provides. It's offensive and it pisses me off. I can only imagine how a Republican might react to it.
Submitted by: a reader
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT