LA Times: Tabloids don't deserve the 1st Amendment

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 21, 2011 12:38 PM GMT
    Wow. I have to wonder what goes through the minds of the editors and people who let this stuff print through their own pages. That these idiots believe that there should be an arbiter of free speech speaks volumes to their remarkable arrogance and why mainstream and traditional journalists deserve everything they are getting.

    What is remarkable is that this reporter makes no differentiation between the issue of freedom of the press/freedom of speech and the illegal acts to obtain information.

    http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-shapiro-tabloids-20110719,0,6426135.story

    Response here: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903554904576458044101389966.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_MIDDLETopOpinion

    Let's also not forget that it took the National Enquirer to investigate John Edwards.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 21, 2011 1:17 PM GMT
    Can't tell you how many people here have cancelled their subscriptions to the LA Times. Before I used call block lists, they used to call me to beg me to renew. The telemarketers were even instructed to say, "There's a new editorial staff and their intent is not to be biased."

    I walk my dog early when the truck comes by delivering the papers. Have been seeing fewer Times. At least the deliverers stay busy because they also deliver the Wall Street Journal.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 21, 2011 1:41 PM GMT
    I think riddler and I could have explosively great sex.......if neither of us spoke. icon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 21, 2011 1:42 PM GMT
    dekiruman saidI think riddler and I could have explosively great sex.......if neither of us spoke. icon_lol.gif


    Mate - two words. Ball gag.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 21, 2011 2:04 PM GMT
    Lostboy said
    dekiruman saidI think riddler and I could have explosively great sex.......if neither of us spoke. icon_lol.gif


    Mate - two words. Ball gag.



    Kinky. Didn't realize you liked wearing those ;)
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 21, 2011 2:23 PM GMT
    I don't think he had himself or Deki in mind for the ball gag, Riddler ;)

    Though I can think of creative ways to gag mouthy bottoms ;)

    Ermmm. This is a threadjack in the making ... lol
  • slimnmuscly

    Posts: 541

    Jul 21, 2011 3:42 PM GMT
    That op-ed is an absolute piece of shit, but the writer no longer a (tabloid) reporter; he's a lawyer making a self-serving point due to his frustrations, some of which are probably legitimate, in the courts.

    He was never a mainstream or traditional journalist, and there's not one bit of reporting in this piece, unless you count a 12-year-old anecdote as reporting. Which, increasingly, people who don't know what reporting looks like do.

    As for what was going through the minds of the editors, it was the same thing that goes through the minds of new-media editors every day: "Oh, look! Free content from an opinionated asshole of some prominence in his field on a timely topic."

    His piece isn't journalism. It's content, and content can be anything -- no standards required as long as it fills a page, gets traffic, gets people tweeting, etc. Newspapers are dying because, under pressure from new media, they're responding not by beefing up what makes them valuable and distinctive, but by joining the race to get content as cheaply as possible.

    The dwindling pool of remaining journalists -- working stiffs -- aren't getting what they deserve, unless you really, honestly believe that they, and not their corporate overlords, are calling the shots.
  • calibro

    Posts: 8888

    Jul 21, 2011 3:43 PM GMT
    No, what is remarkable is that you're making a mountain out of a mole hill. This is a freaking op-ed. Do you know what that means? It means someone not on staff submitted it. It doesn't necessarily reflect the opinion writers, the staff, or the ownership of the paper. The point of the op-ed is that they are often controversial and they print what people want to say. If anything, this is a wonderful example of freedom of speech because a paper run by you wouldn't have the guts to run it. Papers throughout time have published op-eds that the paper does not agree with, so by attacking the paper because of what the writer in a op-ed thinks, you do a disservice to the first amendment.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 21, 2011 3:46 PM GMT
    socalfitness saidCan't tell you how many people here have cancelled their subscriptions to the LA Times. Before I used call block lists, they used to call me to beg me to renew. The telemarketers were even instructed to say, "There's a new editorial staff and their intent is not to be biased."

    I walk my dog early when the truck comes by delivering the papers. Have been seeing fewer Times. At least the deliverers stay busy because they also deliver the Wall Street Journal.


    I use to get it every day. Then I cancelled. Then they called and said "the coupons you get out of the sunday paper will pay for the subscription" So I got Sunday only. 6 months ago I cancelled that.
  • coolarmydude

    Posts: 9190

    Jul 21, 2011 5:09 PM GMT
    icon_question.gif Is the LA Times still miffed that the National Enquirer was the first to break the news about the John Edwards scandal icon_question.gif

    That's so ages ago...let it go...