I’m actually thinking about canceling my subscription to the L.A. Times this morning.
Why?
Because, as the straw the broke the camel’s back, this morning there’s a Ted Rall comic in the Opinion section. Rall is a litigious hypocrite, who never met a better human being he couldn’t sue or slander.
I’ll give myself a couple hours to think about it, and then probably give them a call and drop an email. I know it’ll deprive me of a key source of blog material, but that just means I’ll have to work harder on things.
What’s so bad about this one? I’ve seen lots worse from Rall. But I’d never dream of questioning his patriotism!
…largely because you’d be too preoccupied questioning his sanity and humanity to ever make it that far down the list.
Ted’s not litigious:
bq. _My jaw dropped when gay GOP blogger Andrew Sullivan accused me in 2003 of “urging the murder of American troops in defense of Islamist terrorists.” Of course I’d done no such thing, and he knew it. If I had had the ready cash I would have slapped the lying bastard with a richly-deserved libel suit._
Take it back, or else . . .
Patrick
Good choice. I was personally amazed at the North Korea puff piece, “N. Korea, Without the Rancor”:http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/la-fg-chat3mar03,1,567032.story?ctrack=1&cset=true as if the world were being terribly unfair in “demonizing” them.
Leftist to the point of being pro-communist.
+Photi
You can read them on-line for free. They post most of their stuff for free for seven days, and then you have to start paying for it. You could get your ammunition to continue despising them on-line, and have the satisfaction of cancelling your subscription, too.
I quit reading them a couple of years ago, when they tried to throw the recall election and to torpedo Arnold. After the November Presidential election I tried to start reading them again, figuring they might have simmered down, but gave it up after 2 or 3 days. ALL of their stuff is biased, and some of it is just out and out lies. It’s not worth the ulcers getting upset, and since what they print isn’t reliable “news” any way, why bother?
I’m surprised you haven’t cancelled it already, especially in light of the fellatio they were giving Kim Jong Il’s regime a few days back. No paper that would print such a Duranty-esque article deserves your time or money. It’s sick.
Your time could be more profitably spent reading… um, well anything really.
Ralls biggest problem is his complete lack of talent. At least Michael Moore makes pretty movies.
Just out of curiosity, why would anyone with regular internet access still subscribe to a newspaper that makes most of their content is available for free online?
Hey, if you disagree with the LA times, join the club. I personally use the /opinion section/Front page lies section/ to wipe up the cat’s urine, but I do enjoy the excellent sports section.
I think that the Arnold attack piece was the most blatant abuse; the PRK piece lacked a lot of context, but the LA times has run stories in the past that did provide that context. Kudos to the bloggers that took the times to task through, because the context ought to be, well, in context.
Cheers
Here’s another example of Rall’s litigiousness, even on matters where he hasn’t a legal leg to stand on.
AL,
Register for the LA Times online FOR FREE. Why pay them a dime?
Rall is not only untalented but also as nutty as the day is long.
That said, Hellman will and should lose the lawsuit. And it’s his own fault.
I don’t have to say that i liked it but then: Thruth hurts
_That said, Hellman will and should lose the lawsuit. And it’s his own fault._
I think you’re right, but it only seems to be encouraging stupid lawsuits and threats.
“Viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiff . . ., the e-mail made plaintiff appear as a rude, petty, self-absorbed writer/cartoonist, who sought to insult and attack New York City’s established cartooning industry.” _Rall v. Hellman_, 284 A.D.2d 113 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
I’m surprised you still have a subscription to the L.A. Times. It is a second class newspaper with second class journalists, and I use the term loosely. If you actually like reading and holding printed papers, you’d do far better to get the Sacremento Bee for California news.
Where it wasn’t simply regurgitating Reuters and AP feeds, the Times’ home-grown coverage and analysis of the build-up to the invasion of Iraq was something I’d expect to see from a first year journalism student (if that).
Also, the Times completely dropped the ball on the single greatest event to occur in California during the 22 years that I have lived here; the California Recall Election.
I don’t even know what there is to think about in a decision like this. Of course, if things get slow and you need fodder for the mill, but you don’t want to rip another piece by a charlatan like Chomsky, Fisk, or Cummings because that’s just too easy; you could always visit the “LA Times:http://www.latimes.com/ online
I dropped Newsweek and the local, Raleigh News and Observer, paper after telling them why I found them to be too left for me and getting no response from either.
I haven’t missed them.
Bob
“Viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiff . . ., the e-mail made plaintiff appear as a rude, petty, self-absorbed writer/cartoonist . . .”
I thought truth was a defense.
#17 Patterico
My thought exactly. If that’s not a true description of Rall, it’s only because it’s too generous.
I’ve though about cancelling my subscription to the Philly Inquirer for years because of its socialist editorial policy. But being a rational actor, I’ve decided not to because the cost of the subscription is less than the value of the food coupons.
There’s free coupons on-line, too. Historically, capitalism relies upon giving the consumer what they want. The only way we as consumers have to *make* MainStream Media change is to bankrupt them. In that light, cancelling subscriptions is the patriotic thing to do.