Letters to the Editor: Is the L.A. Times too opinionated on Trump, or is its coverage just right?
To the editor: Not surprisingly, letters editor Paul Thornton indicated that the Los Angeles Times has received several submissions critical of your publishing what these readers — including me — feel are clearly opinion pieces in the news pages.
He specifically mentioned a recent front-page article that said Trump’s strategy was to “distract” and “deceive.” A more recent example is the article “How Trump’s tax cuts and tariffs will make coronavirus recession worse.”
Missing is any explanation for why The Times is now publishing articles in the news pages that belong with the op-eds. It would be very useful, and a service to your readers, to print such an explanation.
Ed Schoch, Westchester
To the editor: I’ve been meaning to commend the Los Angeles Times for the mostly excellent job it has done as Southern California’s sole remaining major newspaper. I only want to give kudos and encouragement, and I look forward to a time when it is not such a struggle for you to get it done at the level this city and region deserve.
I was moved to write after reading the Mailbag on readers’ responses to your coverage of the president. I too have been struck by what I’ve been reading on the front page, as it often seems that it would be more appropriate for the Opinion section.
However, it is quite clear that the words in these news articles are carefully chosen to describe accurately the reality of the world unfolding before us, much of it emanating from the White House and other Republicans in government.
What you are doing is reportage of unprecedented and almost unbelievable events, and you are to be commended for giving it to us straight. “Distract and deceive” is precisely the tactic in use; it is nothing new, but the depth and breadth of its current deployment is astonishing.
Thank you, and carry on.
Steve Nelson, Goleta
To the editor: Some letter writers took The Times to task for not giving the president enough credit for his accomplishments.
It is to be noted that none of these writers presented in their letters any of the concrete “positives” that the president has accomplished so that the rest of us may see what it is they are seeing. Having nothing to present about his actual accomplishments, they nitpick about the placement in the paper of the articles that you do print about the president.
So, my heartfelt question to The Times is how can you be expected to write anything positive about the president when there truly is no there there?
Jacqueline West, Inglewood