The Los Angeles Times is not participating in today's nationwide editorial page protest against Trump's attacks on the press. Here's why

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.

RxCowboy

Has no Rx for his orange obsession.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
64,318
47,170
1,743
Wishing I was in Stillwater
#1
It's a nice apophasis. From the LA Times:

The Los Angeles Times is not participating in today's nationwide editorial page protest against Trump's attacks on the press. Here's why

More than 300 newspapers around the country will participate today in a group protest of President Trump’s frequent attacks on the news media. Each of the papers will publish editorials — their own separate editorials, in their own words — defending freedom of the press.

The Los Angeles Times, however, has decided not to participate. There will be no free press editorial on our page today.

This is not because we don’t believe that President Trump has been engaged in a cynical, demagogic and unfair assault on our industry. He has, and we have written about it on numerous occasions. As early as April 2017, we wrote this as part of a full-page editorial on “Trump’s War on Journalism”:

“Trump’s strategy is pretty clear: By branding reporters as liars, he apparently hopes to discredit, disrupt or bully into silence anyone who challenges his version of reality. By undermining trust in news organizations and delegitimizing journalism and muddling the facts so that Americans no longer know who to believe, he can deny and distract and help push his administration’s far-fetched storyline.”

We still believe that. Nevertheless, the editorial board decided not to write about the subject on this particular Thursday because we cherish our independence.

The Los Angeles Times editorial board does not speak for the New York Times or for the Boston Globe or the Chicago Tribune or the Denver Post. We share certain opinions with those newspapers; we disagree on other things. Even when we do agree with another editorial page — on the death penalty or climate change or war in Afghanistan, say — we reach our own decisions and positions after careful consultation and deliberation among ourselves, and then we write our own editorials. We would not want to leave the impression that we take our lead from others, or that we engage in groupthink.

The president himself already treats the media as a cabal — “enemies of the people,” he has called us, suggesting over and over that we’re in cahoots to do damage to the country. The idea of joining together to protest him seems almost to encourage that kind of conspiracy thinking by the president and his loyalists. Why give them ammunition to scream about “collusion”?

We mean no disrespect to those who have decided to write on this important subject today. But we will continue to write about the issue on our own schedule.

Nicholas Goldberg is editor of The Times’ editorial pages.
 

CocoCincinnati

Federal Marshal
Feb 7, 2007
15,397
23,283
1,743
Tulsa, OK
#4
I still can't help but laugh at just how much the actions of these papers are proving Trump right here. It's just so dang funny. I would say the Times decision here shows they are smart enough to realize this but that may be giving them too much credit.
 
Mar 11, 2006
1,579
1,332
1,743
#5
I still can't help but laugh at just how much the actions of these papers are proving Trump right here. It's just so dang funny. I would say the Times decision here shows they are smart enough to realize this but that may be giving them too much credit.
It is amazing that they don’t get their coordinated and colluding attack is proving Trump 100%. This silly stunt by 350 newspapers (and sadly Tulsa World included) stunt is going to backfire.
 

Rack

Federal Marshal
Oct 13, 2004
18,059
8,215
1,743
Earth
#6
Another issue is that print media is in massive decline and these papers kind of need to do stunts like this to increase sales...Politics or not, they are actually still hanging on to some degree because of this President. Weird, that the very person they revile is actually kind of keeping them afloat. I'd prefer he keep his trap shut and let them die. ;-)
 

CaliforniaCowboy

Federal Marshal
Oct 15, 2003
14,297
2,177
1,743
So Cal
#7
Another issue is that print media is in massive decline and these papers kind of need to do stunts like this to increase sales...Politics or not, they are actually still hanging on to some degree because of this President. Weird, that the very person they revile is actually kind of keeping them afloat. I'd prefer he keep his trap shut and let them die. ;-)
I would rather that the print media survive and that the talking heads (Acosta, Scarborough, etc) die out.... because most of the far, far left liberal base can't read anyway.
 

wrenhal

Territorial Marshal
Aug 11, 2011
6,424
3,334
743
48
#13
I still can't help but laugh at just how much the actions of these papers are proving Trump right here. It's just so dang funny. I would say the Times decision here shows they are smart enough to realize this but that may be giving them too much credit.
We will prove to you we don't have an agenda, by having an agenda.

Sent from my stang5litre Edition 5.0 using Tapatalk
 

Cimarron

It's not dying I'm talking about, it's living.
Jun 28, 2007
51,640
17,917
1,743
#14
Maybe the public that is disgusted with the news should for a week beginning Sept 1, 2018 not turn to a TV news station, buy or read a single newspaper, click on a single news internet sight, and cancel all news subscriptions (including newspapers, internet news service, newsletters, enews, etc).
 

CaliforniaCowboy

Federal Marshal
Oct 15, 2003
14,297
2,177
1,743
So Cal
#15
Maybe the public that is disgusted with the news should for a week beginning Sept 1, 2018 not turn to a TV news station, buy or read a single newspaper, click on a single news internet sight, and cancel all news subscriptions (including newspapers, internet news service, newsletters, enews, etc).
but, but, but.... all the real news that is not "official", is reported in the WaPo Style section. Can we at least keep reading the Style section?

they report all sorts of real or pending stuff happening in DC in the Style section, so that they aren't actually reporting "news".... shhhh
 
Jul 28, 2011
67
14
558
Reno NV
#16
The owner of the Times published his editorial in today's San Diego Union-Tribune, which he also owns. It is quite eloquent but uses big words and long sentences, thus rendering it unintelligible to our Twitterer-in-Chief.
 

CaliforniaCowboy

Federal Marshal
Oct 15, 2003
14,297
2,177
1,743
So Cal
#17
The owner of the Times published his editorial in today's San Diego Union-Tribune, which he also owns. It is quite eloquent but uses big words and long sentences, thus rendering it unintelligible to our Twitterer-in-Chief.
but... we already told him why he did it, he didn't need to double down on self promotion. I guess if it worked so well with one rag, then use it again to promote his other failing venture. LOL
 
Feb 15, 2007
251
28
1,578
#18
300 plus newspapers probably owned by the same 10 or so entities, some of whom now, just two days later want the names of the jurors on the Manafort trial.