One reason why newspapers are dying

[fruits&nuts]

Tax protestors held a rally in Orange County, California, recently. The protest was organized by two conservative talk radio hosts. Somewhere between 8000-15000 people showed up, but not the LA Times. As this blog notes, the reason the LA Times didn't cover it was because they didn't agree with the anti tax protest. For those who are not familiar with it, the LA Times leans so far left it is about to fall into the Pacific. If 1000 people had shown up to protest cutting taxes, the LA Times would have been there and given it front page coverage. This is the same newspaper that suppressed a video showing Obama praising Palestinian activist Rashid Khalidi in 2003.

This is one reason that newspapers are deservedly dying - complete and total journalistic corruption. They make no pretense of covering the news. Their only agenda is to push their political ideology. The day that the LA Times folds will be a good day for America.

http://patterico.com/2009/03/10/la-t...thy-oh-really/

[bughunter99]

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/read...ing-taxes.html

Perspective from the LA Times.

{exerpt}
The Times noted the event with a short post on the L.A. Now blog on March 8. The rally was covered by the Orange County Register and San Gabriel Valley Tribune (which noted: "The radio station reported as many as 15,000 people attended, but a Fullerton police sergeant estimated 3,000 to 8,000 people were there").

Other events with similar numbers don't always get stories; an earlier post on this journal gave the thinking on that last year.

California Editor David Lauter wrote back to scores who asked about the event. The gist of his response: No, The Times didn't cover the rally. But yes, The Times has covered the issues that led to anger behind the rally.

Here's the e-mail Lauter sent out late Monday to many dozens who wrote:

Thanks to each of you for writing. I appreciate hearing from all of you -- even the ones who called me a moron.

We all agree that the tax issue is extremely important. That's why, in the last few weeks alone, the Times has run more than 30 stories about the tax and budget proposals being pushed by the Legislature and the governor. That's also why we ran a tax chart so you could see how much the new taxes would cost you.

Here's just a few of the other stories that we've been first to report:

-- We were the first to tell you about the governor's decision to go back on his "no new taxes" pledge
-- We broke the details on the budget proposals being negotiated behind closed doors in Sacramento
-- The Times was the first to disclose that the Legislature and governor were planning to increase the Vehicle License Fee

-- We were the first to report that Proposition 1A included a provision that would make tax increases permanent.

On top of that, the other day, we broke the story of top Schwarzenegger administration officials who were getting their commuting expenses reimbursed by the taxpayers. Not to mention the top official who had to resign last week after one of our reporters figured out that she had taken money for speeches to drug companies that her agency was supposed to be regulating.

That's the sort of reporting that our readers expect and get -- daily -- from the Times. Those of you who don't read us missed those stories -- or perhaps you got them a day late when someone else picked them up and repeated them. I'm glad to say, though, that the number of people who do read them continues to grow. Our web traffic has more than doubled in the last year (latimes.com was the fastest growing major website in the country), and our overall readership between print and the web is higher than it has ever been. Those kinds of exclusive stories are a chief reason why, and that's what I want to keep our reporters focused on: digging up new facts that others can't get.

Between now and the May 19 election, we plan extensive coverage of both sides of the campaign over the ballot initiatives. We'll explain the issues, tell readers what both sides are saying, figure out where the money is coming from to pay for the campaigns on both sides and show people what's at stake. What we're not likely to do is cover a lot of individual rallies -- from either side. That's not a political thing. We don't cover a lot of government-worker rallies in favor of tax hikes, either. That doesn't mean we're not interested in the issue or that we have any disrespect for the people who attend the rallies (or the people who organize them).

Thanks for reading,

David Lauter
California Editor
Los Angeles Times

[FAADAN]

Investigative reporting has died. They made absolutely no effort to find out and report anything about Obama. That left the fringe media wide open to report anything they wanted as fact because there was no legitimate press ccoverage.

Originally Posted by FAADAN

Investigative reporting has died. They made absolutely no effort to find out and report anything about Obama. That left the fringe media wide open to report anything they wanted as fact because there was no legitimate press ccoverage.

Since I am a native of LA County I do know well how the Times is. They have always been Strongly Liberal in every sense of the word as the original post says. This is one big reason my folks never got it. We got another LA paper the Evening Outlook. To me the Times caters even more to the ultra liberals in Hollywood and elsewhere more than ever before. I agree FAADAN that investigative reporting has died or is near death at the very least.


Kevin

[Imp]

Newspapers aren't turning toes up, the advertising is still a good deal and we sure deliver a lot of papers every night, along with quite a few other folks.

I sometimes wonder why some of your thread titles are so not in line with your thread?

This topic is actually about the LA Times and how you dislike it, so you open a topic with this title "One reason why newspapers are dying " instead of something that is either accurate or related to the topic.

I haven't heard of the LA Times dieing, either, BTW, no matter how left it may seem to lean or not.

[FAADAN]

Originally Posted by Imp

Newspapers aren't turning toes up, the advertising is still a good deal and we sure deliver a lot of papers every night, along with quite a few other folks.

I sometimes wonder why some of your thread titles are so not in line with your thread?

This topic is actually about the LA Times and how you dislike it, so you open a topic with this title "One reason why newspapers are dying " instead of something that is either accurate or related to the topic.

I haven't heard of the LA Times dieing, either, BTW, no matter how left it may seem to lean or not.

All of the big newspapers are struggling to stay alive, including the L.A. Times. The New York Times recently sold off part of it's headquarters building to avoid bankruptcy, and their stock is worth less than the cost of their Sunday paper. Alternate news sources have hurt circulation but their biggest asset, true investigative reporting, has truly died. They totally sacrificed credibility for political gain during this last election and will probably never get it back.

and the last 8 years, this isn't a recent development.
The b administration told them if they didn't play by their rules,
then they couldn't play at all. especially the first 4 years.

[FAADAN]

Originally Posted by tughillcam

and the last 8 years, this isn't a recent development.
The b administration told them if they didn't play by their rules,
then they couldn't play at all. especially the first 4 years.

That is such a load of ****. They published secret memos that they dug up. The went on and on about six months about Abu Grahib. They constantly bashed the Bush administration. They pounded on the economy even when it was doing great. When unemployment levels were at 4% they said things like "more people are unemployed today than ever before." Ignoring the fact that there were more people employed than ever before. Even when asked to hold back on a story like the fact that we were listening in on Osama's cell phone they went ahead and published that fact so we could no longer track him. They were absolutely treasonous.

[tweed]

The media should be the people's biggest advocate.
Regardless of your political stance, they are just the opposite.

Originally Posted by FAADAN

They were absolutely treasonous.

on that we agree... for polarly opposite reasons.