/ December 30, 2004 11:34 AM
Do You Like The LA Times?
Well Patterico does. So much so that he spent the entire year picking out their idiocy, so you wouldn't have to.
See his report at Patterico's Pontifications: Patterico's Los Angeles Dog Trainer Year in Review 2004 -- Part One: The 2004 Presidential Election
This entry is in the following archive(s):
Next and Previous Entries:
Posted by Digger on December 30, 2004 11:34 AM (Permalink)
No i dont the LA times is too damn liberal and too left-wing for me and besides we dont even get it up here in northern california we have other liberal rags like the sacramento bee and san francisco chronicle to misinform us
Posted by: mad heron on December 30, 2004 11:53 AM
Posted by: Digger on December 30, 2004 12:12 PM
The LOS ANGELES TIMES is truly pathetic. They have irritated many longtime subscribers who have terminated them due to the the TIMES's left wing mantra.
They hire folks in supermarkets in the Valley to try and give it away, in order to try and attract gullible readers.
Posted by: Joe Lunchbox on December 30, 2004 02:34 PM
The Times--where can one start? It ignores local news of real significance until everyone BUT the Times is howling about it. E.g., the implosion of King-Drew hospital which lost teaching certifications and has almost been shut down by accreditation boards--the Times finally ran a big(and really good but after the fact) story late this year. Its left-wing slant is evident, pedestrian and sloppy (e.g., the Paul Bremmer story cited in the Review noted above). They opposed the recall of Gov Davis who spent us into this mess. The paper opposed limiting property taxes. Its clueless reporters (the good ones have pretty much left) were surprised by the budget disaster in California--too many anecdotal feature stories on poverty in Punjib or "Aspirations of Camel Cleaners: one Man's Tale" in Egypt.(I made that up--but any Times reader will recognize it as illustrative). They ignore our local administrators who are a collection of pork-barrel politicians for the most part. The Times supports every tax increase; ignores the loss of jobs; but has the most impressive "Food" section anywhere. Its price is 50% of the NYT and overpriced at that. Circulation falling. Even the "rogue" columnist they brought in--Steve Lopez--has become tame fare since he has run out of ballsy things to say after criticizing the local Cathiloc diocse for spending millons on a church instead of relief/schools/charity (it was good critique--but it was in 2002). He has either opted for the quiet life or just can't find anything else in a poorly run city to criticize. The Sunday magazine is a joke: PARADE is a better read; its a damn shame. Schools under seige; trauma care centers closing; state's in the red; a clueless newspaper. Oh well. Weird, but here you subscribe or buy the NYT. At least it does pretentious reporting well.
Posted by: INLASINCE1975 on December 31, 2004 12:34 PM
Perfect example of the Times: the new sales tax floated in the January 6 issue. Crime is down in LA by 14% per the Times. The voters refused to approve a tax last year for the LAPD. Now the City Council wants a new one. Does the Times oppose the tax because crime is down? Because LAPD seems to have adequate funds to "gotha tickets" issued by motocycle patrolmen with plenty of time to sit and ticket people for making an "illegal left turn" between 4 and 6 pm. The Times doeen't care. Will the income be used for more street patrolmen? The Times doesen't as or care.
Posted by: nomoretaxes! on January 6, 2005 12:58 PM