Weekly Diatribe report on the LA Times

N2272V · 07-21-2005, 03:11 PM

There has been a substantial amount of debate about liberal bias in the mainstream press. Some actually attempt to portray this as Right Wing distortions.

In an effort to make clear my position, here is a daily summary of the Editorials in the vaunted, yet rapidly becoming irrelevant LA Times:

A discussion about the insensitivity of Police Commisioner Bratton's response to questions in the killing of Suzie Marie Pena who was used as a "shield" while her drugged criminal father attempted to shoot police officers and wounded one.

A discussion about the ingenuity of the Indonesian President Susilo Bambang and how he should sign the peace agreement on August 15th and how it's future is uncertain to contain the violence in that country. It also suggests that sharing revenues from Acehs oil and natural gas resources can go a long way to disuade the guerilla's propensity for violence. DUH

So how many want to take bets on the outcome of this policy? DER

Letters to the Editor:

General Westmoreland's death:

Two letters criticising the late General Westmoreland's conduct of the Vietnam War, one states it was the "leaders" fault, one compares similarities between Vietnam and Iraq.

LA Police:
One letter actually supports the LA police in the recent shooting. Most days, it is a harangue against the police brutality.

Illegal Imigration:
One letter argues that we should not deport four students who studied for free in our country but were here ILLEGALLY.

On Supreme Court Nomination:
One letter criticising the Democrats lack of civility when it comes to Court Nominees specifically relating to John Roberts Jr.

One complaining how Bush had a chance to put "One woman, one African American.....this was an opportunity for the President to assure his place in history with a great deed. Sadly, it is a lost opportunity for us all."

One complains about the "Republican spin machine spitting out the usual disinformation" about the new Supreme Court nominee.

One letter makes the following statement:" Bush's nomination of Roberts i certain to make a lot of conservative WHITE MALES very happy. Especially Karl Rove."

One article written by an associate porofessor at the University of Virginia School of Law about At Risk: Roe, rights and religion. Basically his conclusion is that Roe, rights and religion: Roberts, if approved, will UNDERMINE settled constitutional law with all three.

And we wonder what is WRONG with our educational systems these days?

There is another article by Margaret Carlson regarding Arlen Spector's bill regarding stem cell research. Her argument is that this bill is neccessary in overiding the ban on federal funding on stem cell research (a lie) - a ban that has stymied research into cures for the incurable (another lie).

With journalism like this, who needs truth?

The last, but BEST liberal article is written by a retired Washington Chief Correspondent for the Times. It basically makes the argument that: "Without leaks, without anonimity for some sources, a free press loses its ability to act as a check and balance against the power of Government.

I guess it is okay to make outlandish claims and just quote "unamed" sources of these claims.

I guess the press has forgotten all the recent and past false articles that has plagued journalism. Dan Rather comes to mind.

The laugheable part of these "media" arguments is that our Government must be lacking those checks and balances, therefore it is okay for the news media to write stories that break the law and use unnamed sources? Where's the check and balance on the media? Who's going to ensure that they are fair and balanced or even truthful?

This same media that argues against the "power" of Government, never seems to have a problem with always making a case for MORE Government intervention in our lives as it relates to corporations, healthcare, TAXES, cigarettes, and more failed social welfare programs.

I believe that the correct term here is hypocrisy.

LA Times Editorial Score: Liberal point of view 11, Conservative: 2 Oh and Conservatives get one bonus point because the LA Times used another Ramirez cartoon today.

There you have the REST of the story. Carry on!

07-21-2005, 03:11 PM	#1
N2272V Insane Collector Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Ventura Age: 54 Posts: 2,110	Weekly Diatribe report on the LA Times There has been a substantial amount of debate about liberal bias in the mainstream press. Some actually attempt to portray this as Right Wing distortions. In an effort to make clear my position, here is a daily summary of the Editorials in the vaunted, yet rapidly becoming irrelevant LA Times: A discussion about the insensitivity of Police Commisioner Bratton's response to questions in the killing of Suzie Marie Pena who was used as a "shield" while her drugged criminal father attempted to shoot police officers and wounded one. A discussion about the ingenuity of the Indonesian President Susilo Bambang and how he should sign the peace agreement on August 15th and how it's future is uncertain to contain the violence in that country. It also suggests that sharing revenues from Acehs oil and natural gas resources can go a long way to disuade the guerilla's propensity for violence. DUH So how many want to take bets on the outcome of this policy? DER Letters to the Editor: General Westmoreland's death: Two letters criticising the late General Westmoreland's conduct of the Vietnam War, one states it was the "leaders" fault, one compares similarities between Vietnam and Iraq. LA Police: One letter actually supports the LA police in the recent shooting. Most days, it is a harangue against the police brutality. Illegal Imigration: One letter argues that we should not deport four students who studied for free in our country but were here ILLEGALLY. On Supreme Court Nomination: One letter criticising the Democrats lack of civility when it comes to Court Nominees specifically relating to John Roberts Jr. One complaining how Bush had a chance to put "One woman, one African American.....this was an opportunity for the President to assure his place in history with a great deed. Sadly, it is a lost opportunity for us all." One complains about the "Republican spin machine spitting out the usual disinformation" about the new Supreme Court nominee. One letter makes the following statement:" Bush's nomination of Roberts i certain to make a lot of conservative WHITE MALES very happy. Especially Karl Rove." One article written by an associate porofessor at the University of Virginia School of Law about At Risk: Roe, rights and religion. Basically his conclusion is that Roe, rights and religion: Roberts, if approved, will UNDERMINE settled constitutional law with all three. And we wonder what is WRONG with our educational systems these days? There is another article by Margaret Carlson regarding Arlen Spector's bill regarding stem cell research. Her argument is that this bill is neccessary in overiding the ban on federal funding on stem cell research (a lie) - a ban that has stymied research into cures for the incurable (another lie). With journalism like this, who needs truth? The last, but BEST liberal article is written by a retired Washington Chief Correspondent for the Times. It basically makes the argument that: "Without leaks, without anonimity for some sources, a free press loses its ability to act as a check and balance against the power of Government. I guess it is okay to make outlandish claims and just quote "unamed" sources of these claims. I guess the press has forgotten all the recent and past false articles that has plagued journalism. Dan Rather comes to mind. The laugheable part of these "media" arguments is that our Government must be lacking those checks and balances, therefore it is okay for the news media to write stories that break the law and use unnamed sources? Where's the check and balance on the media? Who's going to ensure that they are fair and balanced or even truthful? This same media that argues against the "power" of Government, never seems to have a problem with always making a case for MORE Government intervention in our lives as it relates to corporations, healthcare, TAXES, cigarettes, and more failed social welfare programs. I believe that the correct term here is hypocrisy. LA Times Editorial Score: Liberal point of view 11, Conservative: 2 Oh and Conservatives get one bonus point because the LA Times used another Ramirez cartoon today. There you have the REST of the story. Carry on! Last edited by N2272V; 07-21-2005 at 03:15 PM.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread: