Readers React: Donald Sterling and The Times
As a longtime subscriber to The Times, an active member of Amnesty International, a former docent at the Museum of Tolerance and the son of Holocaust survivors, I found your front-page story on Donald Sterling (“Sterling foundation ads tout good works, but verifying them isn’t easy,” May 3) surprisingly shameful.
Yes, the guy appears to be a bigot, and sometimes he doesn’t give promised monies to charities. Does this mean The Times should splash this coverage all over its front page? Why not bury it inside, where the scandal hunters would find it anyway?
Why not reserve the front page for real stories, including the Ukraine crisis and what it means, or why all the top guys on Wall Street who caused people to lose their homes never went to jail?
Why not talk about Nigeria, the resurgence of Al Qaeda, democracy being lost to big money, the horrific income divide and poverty in the U.S.? The Times should deepen its reports on real issues.
It seems a bit disingenuous for a world-class news organization such as The Times to be taking Sterling to task for the apparent gap between the amount he publicly claims to have given to charities and the amount that has actually changed hands.
Where was all this hard-nosed reporting during the many years in which The Times happily accepted his advertising dollars without a word?
Self-promotion is not a crime. If it were, everyone in my business (show business) would be in jail.
If it is the policy of the Times to take money for advertising without bothering to confirm the veracity of the content, it behooves the paper to simply say “Thank you.”
A cure for the common opinion
Get thought-provoking perspectives with our weekly newsletter.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.