After all, O’Connor was in the minority on Kelo, which was handed down less than three weeks ago.

As for Tribune, forget it. Their corporate editorial set is unabashedly lefty. Hell, check out their Washington correspondent, Sabrina “Even Though” Fang (as in, “President Bush fed tsunami victims with his own hands today, even though Russian Abu Ghraib porn is still available on the internet…”)

I can easily answer your question: these people are lazy! They donít put much effort into the finished product. I have met a number of journalists and got the distinct impression that they barely worked twenty hours a week. This is why the New York Times is so destructive. These so-called professionals barely read the Times and a handful of other news sources—and thatís essentially it.

The character Jenny in the movie ìLove Storyî is famous for declaring ìlove means never having to say you are sorry.î Being a MSM journalist today often is another way of asserting ìI am a liberal and that means I can get away with being lazy.î

Well, yeah, but then few conspiracies are overt, almost by definition.

Forget the “conspiracy” issue. How do you consciously count 5-4 decisions from the records and miss 11 of 24 such cases? Do you consciously stop after 13? Or consciously skip just about every other one?

Whatever; either they “unconsciously” lied or consciously “miscounted.”

I think the contention that they didn’t “consciously li[e]” is as laughable a distortion of language as the concept of “consciously miscounting.” It’s a distortion masking a lie.

The lack of a second major daily leads to lazziness. I used to deliver the old Herald Examiner as a kid and it was fun to buy both and read different versions of the same story. They kept each other on their toes and would lite into each other when one or the other made a mistake. I still get the Times but it is stale and predictable. They are cutting down on their hard news and their entertainment section, The Calender, has been beefed up lately with two parts on certain days of the week. Instead of improving the front page and concentrating on news they are doing more pieces on celebrities and having larger photos in their entertainment section. People Magazine on newsprint.

Kevin Peters

When did Los Angeles get a significant daily newspaper? I thought that, just like San Francisco, it had none.

I categorically reject the notion that they are consciously lying. There is no overt conspiracy. These folks are simply on the same page. Self delusion underpins their behavior. They reside in an echo chamber. Itís all tacit and everybody senses what is expected of them. Nobody is required to spell out the details. Once they have lied to themselves—it is far easier to try to persuade you that bovine excrement is really intellectual brilliance.

Please understand that these professionals are often the political moderates within their own social milieu. Many of their friends are far crazier. This is why they are convinced of their own objectivity and nonpartisanship.

What sells is demonization, like the current Tim Robbins film Embedded.

Read the review from Libertas…http://www.libertyfilmfestival.com/libertas/

I’m not sure that you read the essay by Bertonneau that Truepeers linked yesterday but the topic of basic competence may be a factor. Bertonneau’s thesis concerning phonetics and orthography being logical building blocks is very interesting. I believe that the LAT is quite capable of lying at length in support of their agenda but it takes a real dummy to operate in a magical world where basic facts manipulated in favor of the propaganda piece of the day are printed without any concern that they might be checked.

Or does the LAT assume that enough of its readership has passed through what we laughingly refer to as an educational system so that any fodder will be found suitable? Are they so sure that they feel their audience is now incapable of logical criticism that they can print whatever they wish? Worse yet, are they correct?

The economics of starting another major paper regretfully makes little sense. My guess is that two billion dollars minimally would be required to get the ball rolling. Investors can find far more lucrative and less risky ventures. A smaller newspaper, at best, focussing on specific demographics might be possible. No, the future belongs to the new media.

Intellectual laziness probably explains the outrageous errors of the Timeís editors. These professional class members are rarely challenged to do better work. They merely need to go through the motions and remain loyal to the consensus liberal agenda. Iím sure that similar errors occurred years ago. It was just too difficult to take them to task on a regular basis.