Patrick Frey, who has been doing a yeoman’s job of criticizing the Los Angeles Times on his blog Patterico’s Pontifications, has an op-ed in that paper today on the LAT’s coverage of the Cindy Sheehan affair. I’m not sure, as Frey writes, that the LAT is really trying to turn Sheehan into the next Rosa Parks. If so, the paper has a long way to go (like light years). But even so their coverage of this particular episode has been boring, shallow and biased. No suprise there. But my question is this: Isn’t it our job in the end to start our own outlets to tell our vision of the truth rather than expecting organs like the LAT to reform themselves according to our principles? As a wise fellow once said, “Freedom of the press is limited to those who own one.”
We rarely, or never, choose the paradigms that we operate according to (look at the bicycle seat – the most unfortunate design ever but it has never been changed, we adapt to its requirements). Even when it becomes apparent that a model is completely absurd in application, its pointlessness is neutralized by our conditioning and consequent paralysis. On the one hand the LAT is a sub-standard opinion sheet spewing vapid gas, but on the other, it is a legitimate newspaper model written by model legitimate journalists.
look at the bicycle seat – the most unfortunate design ever but it has never been changed, we adapt to its requirements
Actually, as somebody who used to own part of a bicycle shop, I can state with certainty that there have been many alternative designs for bicycle saddles on the market. Many of them today are cut out to alleviate pressure on the perineum.
“Freedom of the press is limited to those who own one.”
Freedom of the press extends to anybody who can rent one, borrow one, or pay somebody else to run one for him. I’d include “wise” in my description of A.J. Liebling, but the next word wouldn’t be “fellow”.
Of course, today, the “press” in its most literal sense, isn’t even necessary. The internet, television, radio, etc., see to that.
“Isn’t it our job in the end to start our own outlets to tell our vision of the truth rather than expecting organs like the LAT to reform themselves according to our principles?”
Yes, and one effective way to help tell our vision of the truth is to contrast it with visions that lack honesty. I don’t think anyone expects the LAT to reform itself, at least not in its current form. They do, however, make a useful foil.
“Isn’t it our job in the end to start our own outlets to tell our vision of the truth rather than expecting organs like the LAT to reform themselves according to our principles?”
And isn’t it our obligation as consumers to insist that major corporations like Times/Tribune live up to their advertising, as when they tell us we are getting accurate, comprehensive, unbiased news and divorcing opinion from documented fact?
It’s probably academic at this point. The Times is desperately hurting for money, and that’s going to get worse if Hollywood cuts down on its movie advertising as the studios are threatening. H
And have you seen the new daily editorial page in the Times? Two or three columnists in huge type in blocky, space-wasting layouts. They’re obviously trying to cut costs by cutting expensive columnists. The Times is terminal.
While I applaud the LA Times for publishing Patterico’s piece, I have no confidence that this reflects a shift in the coverage by L.A.’s paper of record.
Patterico points out ommissions in the reporting on Cindy Sheehan that simply cannot be attributed to errors, oversights or mistakes. To fail to include information about Sheehan’s previous meetings with Pres. Bush, to edit out her increasingly strident and anti-Semitic ravings, leaves us with, if you’ll pardon the turn of phrase, bush-league journalism (no insult intended to the president).
Honestly, twenty minutes with the pajama-clad bloggers gives one a much more complete picture of Sheehan and her mission.
The only effective way of forcing change is the economic boycott. Hugh Hewitt has been reporting that the LA Times has suffered a catastrophic loss of revenue and circulation. I cancelled my subscription years ago, as a result of their anti-Israeli, pro-terrorist coverage.
Can’t say I’ve ever regretted that decision.
Crap; hit the “Post” button instead of “Preview.”
When I said the Times was guilty of bush-league journalism, what I failed to add is that is the most charitable interpretation, with no allegation of bias.
I’m not willing to give them the benefit of the doubt; the Times is practicing “Agenda Journalism,” which is far closer to being publicists for the anti-war Bush-hating fringe than impartial reporters.
As to the whole, “idealists who want to change the world” aspect of reporting, WTF?
If the press had any faith in the unwashed masses, they’d just report the who-what-when-where-why-how and let us try and figger out whut we think.
Yeah, right.
OK, honesty forces me to concede that the new Times editorial page layout may be the result of an assumption by the editors that all their fine, decent, progressive readers are so cross-eyed with rage at George Bush by now that they can no longer read smaller type…
When does any organization work for the public good when it is without benefit of competition?
Nice blog.I like this.
John