« Schumer signals Dem strategy ... | Main | TOTBAL* »
January 01, 2006
Patterico reviews The Los Angeles Dog Trainer
Patterico again does a yeoman's job of cataloguing sins of omission and commission of Los Angeles' "premier" metropolitan newspaper during 2005.
Magnificent job. Bravo!
Posted by Darleen at January 1, 2006 12:29 PM
Comments
He doesn't like The Times editorials, Mz Darleen, that's why he says the paper's no good.
He thinks because he catches columnists and editors in minor errors, that somehow or another he's destroyed the Times credibility.
He hasn't....
It's true that newspapers are probably on their way out, but not because of Patterico's blatherings.
Posted by: Carl W. Goss at January 2, 2006 04:48 PM
The mistakes and errors Paterico mentions don't sound especially minor to me---and the L.A. Times' one-sided and highly biased reporting has been a joke out here on the West Coast for years; "The Left Angeles Times", "The Left Angeles Slimes", "Al-Jazeera West"---when the Times reports that it's going to be "ANOTHER BEAUTIFUL SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA DAY!" Angelinos get out their umbrellas; that's how reliable it is. I know "Rolling Stone" recently did an expose on the Times' cover-up of the Ramparts scandal.
The Times has done a great job of destroying its own credibility; it needs no help from anybody else.
Posted by: TalkinKamel at January 2, 2006 06:55 PM
Forget Xanax and Zoloft!
Read the L.A.Times comic section! (It'll put ya to sleep right away---except for "Mutts", that's okay.)
Darleen, you might wanna do something about the spamming advertiser.
Posted by: TalkinKamel at January 3, 2006 07:52 AM
Carl
I'm a native Angelino, born in Los Angeles at St. Vincent's hospital for crissakes and raised by an advertising man who started out in the newspaper biz in the late 50's (Citizen News then the Examiner before it merged with the Herald). I started reading the LA Times frontpage to back when I was 10 years old.
The LA Times has been in the shitter for a lot of years now. My dad cancelled his 30 year subscription with the Staples debacle. It's NOT a matter of a few "errors" but an accumulation of hubris, non-competition and a taste of complete power over information distribution.
BTW Kamel? I'm in the process of upgrading and redesigning the site. Unfortunately the spam is getting through in the mean time. ARgh.
Posted by: Darleen at January 3, 2006 01:13 PM
This is a good site Mz Darleen. Lotta good discussion. Sassy. Tart.
I'm an LA Native too. Used to be a paper called the Daily News. It folded in the 1950s. The Examiner folded. LA Times was left standing.
I suspect most big city newspapers are little more than dinosaurs, evolutionary hangers-on, waiting around for extinction.
Posted by: Carl W. Goss at January 4, 2006 09:01 AM
Sorry about the spam, Darleen! Good luck with it!
(And, once again, for anyone tempted to buy spamm-y products---if you want to sleep, read the incredibly unfunny L.A. Times' funny pages right away!)
As for the big papers going extinct---can't happen soon enough for me!
Posted by: TalkinKamel at January 4, 2006 12:00 PM
The L.A. Times should have tanked years ago, if for nothing else, Robert Scheer's support of the evil Korean dictatorship, and the paper's drooling idealization, for years, of terrorism's daddy, Yassir Arafat.
Posted by: TalkinKamel at January 4, 2006 12:09 PM
Carl
You ought to know the Examiner didn't "fold". It was killed off through collusion between the Herald and the LA Times. That's why my dad left it after the merge with the Herald.
Posted by: Darleen at January 5, 2006 12:09 AM
Darleen---just out of curiosity, what is your take on the L.A. Times, that champion of the underdog, the downtrodden and the poor, constantly running ads, articles and little puff-pieces about expensive fashions, highly expensive jewelry, astromically expensive homes and it's obession with pricey bistros, yummy sushi joints and eating in general?---Not to mention its adulation of what could be called "Lifestyles of the rich and Brain-Dead."
I know I've touched on this topic in other places, but I'm interested in what you have to say, as a fellow Californian.
Really doesn't seem to me that their target audience is the underpriveleged that they love to gush on and on about.
Posted by: TalkinKamel at January 5, 2006 07:52 AM