They’re cutting 150 editorial staff positions by Labor Day. As usual, Kevin Roderick has the internal memos.
And as always, I see these changes as resulting primarily from the challenge posed by the Internet, and not from a loss of readership due to bias. I ask commenters not to gloat. Some good people will lose their livelihoods, and that’s not a reason to celebrate.
That's the entirety of Patterico's post on the subject. I think he's being a bit too kind. Yes, some good people will lose their jobs, but for every 'good' person losing their job in this cutback, there will be a dozen people who probably should never have been in the news or opinion business in the first place. The biggest problem at the LAT is that they've replaced the "OR" in News "OR" Opinion with an "AND", the need to editorialize during reporting infects all aspects of that paper, from Health, to Home, to Politics, to even the damn Automotive section. Even where a point of view is called for, like a Film Review, or Architecture Review, their staff has a need to inject every third paragraph with some sort of political statement (invariably about the eeevils of those Cons, Social Cons and Neo-Cons). It's predictable, it's offensive, and worst of all, it's trite and uninteresting. Be as liberal as you want to be, but admit it, and be interesting about it. The LAT just doesn't get it, bias isn't a problem per se, so long as it is out in the open, and the people communicating are engaging.
8 comments:
You wrote that "editorialize during reporting infects all aspects of" the LATimes "from Health, to Home, to Politics, to even the damn Automotive section. Even where a point of view is called for, like a Film Review, or Architecture Review, their staff has a need to inject every third paragraph with some sort of political statement (invariably about the eeevils of those Cons, Social Cons and Neo-Cons)."
I doubt you can support that with facts. But I could be wrong.
How about taking this test?
Below are three headlines from today's digital front page.
Please identify exactly where you find editorializing in general and "some sort of political statement" that fits your "inevitably" description.
Then please pick any other three articles from today's LATimes and do the same.
Here are my three:
Purge of King-Harbor falters
By Garrett Therolf and Jack Leonard
Secret tapes of former Orange County sheriff contain racist and coarse language
By Christine Hanley
McCain again shuffles top campaign aides
By Maeve Reston and Mark Z. Barabak
I look forward to your response.
It's not the editorializing, it's the lack of coverage for local stories that other national papers get.
The NYT magazine had a big story on the comeback attempt of Olympic swimmer, 41 year old Dara Torres. SHE LIVES HERE. The LAT should have owned that story, had a blog about her, video updates, the whole thing. WTF?
Also, the entertainment coverage is dreadful. The paper recently ran an editorial about the Universal fire--things looked good! They might as well be living in Duluth.
The response to my post is off point. There are, for sure, many legitimate criticisms of the LATimes.
The original post made flat statements that I believe have no basis in fact. My challenge to the poster was to examine three articles I picked and then three of the poster's choice from today's digital LATimes news report.
Having made these statements can the poster back them up?
David--it's not all about you. I wasn't responding to your comment. Get your head out of your own ass. I was giving MY opinion.
But Mr. Johnson, it's always all about you. Cathy S. told me so.
Short answer for David Cay Johnston, bestselling author and former Pullitzer Prize winning journalist, is the first article, piece of cake (though I'm sure you'll dispute my facts as being facts as I will cite sins of ommission more than sins of commission, but those are just as important when it comes to journalism), second article, no fair, the facts themselves are so juicy no need to spin it, third article, haven't taken a look yet, but I will.
XWLm, you set the standard, not me. You would surely not let a reporter get away with changing the issues midstream.
You didn't limit yourself in your sweeping accusations. Your language did not have qualifiers or caveats.
Regarding the first story, you did not write of omissions, but of "editorializ[ing] during reporting that infects all aspects" of the LATimes. The term means to "make or express opinions or comments rather than just report the news. So let's see if you can produce any evidence of what you said "infects all aspects" of the paper by the making or expressing of opinions, your standard.
For #2 it appears you concede that your broad claim does not hold.
But be honest. Don't change the issue midway. You surely would not allow a reporter to do that -- and it is disreputable to hold others to a standard to which you do not hold yourself when you criticize them.
BTW, it is also honorable to acknowledge forthrightly that you were wrong if the facts do not support what you asserted.
I look forward to your remarks on #1, #3 and your chosen 3.
Best-selling author, Pulitzer Prize winner and horse's ass aren't necessarily mutually exclusive terms.
Sadly, two of the posters here engage in ad hominem attacks and vitriol and the second, B., completely ignores the issues.
And that is not to take away from Ideefixe's perfectly valid point -- that his/her post was intended as comment on the original and not on my rejoinder and that wrongly interpreted it. I did.
But how about getting back to the issue, OK?
Post a Comment