Opinion: Objective coverage, to whom?

To the editor: Author Justin Raimondo bemoans the lack of objectivity on the part

of the American press but he himself, when commenting on Trump’s invitation to Putin to turn over Clinton’s 30,000 emails, said, “Aside from the fact that Trump was obviously joking ...”

It’s not obvious to me that Trump was joking.

(“The end of objectivity,” Opinion, Aug. 2)

For Raimondo to assume that demonstrates a lack of objectivity on his part.

Ron Garber, Duarte

::

To the editor: Three cheers for The Times, Raimondo on its opinion page. There is hope yet.

Harold Ericsson, Harbor City

::

To the editor: Objectively Trump doesn’t give journalists much to work with, as his campaign consists of little more than praising himself and denigrating everyone else.

Michael D. Mauer, Los Angeles

::

To the editor: Raimondo’s thoughtful piece is about eight years late, at least, in concluding that mainstream political journalism in this country occupies a state of “transparent bias” for the Democratic Party.

I get it — the old guard of Edward R. Murrow, Walter Cronkite, and Eric Sevareid were barely closeted liberals — but they respected the other side of the aisle and maintained a healthy skepticism about mid-20th century liberal panaceas.

Not so the present generation of “journalists,” with a few outstanding exceptions on both sides.

Mark D. Kemp, Cypress

::

To the editor: Your publishing of Raimondo’s article is commendable given The Times reputation.

That being said, this guy is really off the charts.

Let me just focus on one point, of many: that Donald Trump was “obviously joking” when he said the Russians should release Clinton’s emails.

Really?

And just how is this “obvious” since he subsequently doubled down on the subject, and has continued to do so.

Is the publishing of this article a “straw man” to lure comments such as mine?

No rational person can take Raimondo’s argument seriously, can he or she?

Robert Warnock, Los Angeles

::

To the editor: Trump bashing is unobjective?

I’m sorry, have you read the news?

Trump is so busy burying himself in his toddler tantrums whenever anyone says anything remotely non-supportive — let alone critical of him — the press can be completely objective and let Trump bury himself. That’s objective reporting.

Katherine Reuter, Santa Monica

::

To the editor: Raimondo’s harangue bemoaning the lack of journalistic objectivity is laughable vis à vis the utter crudity that defines Trump.

Consider the invective emanating from his undisciplined mouth on a daily basis:

Overrated, a beggar, dumb as a rock, dishonest, a clown, boring, a fool, a total loser, dope, weak, liar, loser, incompetent, a disaster, a disgrace, stupid, a fraud.

These are just a handful of the terms the nominee of the Republican Party uses to defame anyone having the temerity to criticize him.

To deny Trump’s petulant, immature temperament is to replace objectivity with a repudiation of the facts.

The man’s intemperance condemns him to the margins of civilized discourse.

The “transparent bias” that is cited by the author Raimondo simply reflects the media preference for civility over vulgarity.

Emery J. Cummins, San Diego

::

To the editor: Raimondo wrote a wonderful and long overdue opinion piece about the transparent bias in favor of Hillary Clinton by the media and especially by The Times.

Barbara Kimelman, Tarzana

::

To the editor: So the piece by Raimondo is an early April Fool’s joke, right?

I’m not sure where he is finding this “transparent bias” when there is so much data to support the fact that Clinton has received an enormous amount of negative press since this election cycle began.

Susan Molyneux, Manhattan Beach

Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion and Facebook