Last Sunday Oct. 9 LA Times extremely biased

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by 69Charger

I see packed Trump rallies, Trump yard signs, and bumper stickers. No one has any of those for Killary. Trump is going to win, as the "polls" are another biased joke.

Omnipotent "vision", eh Charger? Charger sees it : it must be true universally!

[JohnG72]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

The Times always reports the news. Like all commercial media, they select the stories that are most riveting to the largest readership demographic they target - understanding that a certain level of service to community and general cultural decorum is part of their equation for success.

If their focus appears to feature Trump more negatively than Clinton, consider which of those two candidates presents themselves most controversially. Which candidate makes the most "dust" as it were. Who is most publicly outrageous? Who is most entertaining? Dangerously unstable? Deviating from norms? Deviant in mortality?

Trump has presented himself to the press in the ways he has to deliberately leverage free media coverage. It has been a conscious keystone strategy for him. If you don't like it: wag your finger at the clown who ran out into the center ring with his horn and antics.

Have you read ANY of the Podesta emails? The one from Podesta to Carolyn Curiel, wife of the judge Curiel in Trumps court case is VERY interesting and a fish wrap like the times might actually get readership from running back the salacious backstory to that.

But they won't because they don't want Trump to win.

I assure you that from the days Patrick McGreevy(the Times writer who broke the LAPD Rampart scandal)made a deal with former LAPD deputy chief in charge of LAPD internal affairs Michael Berkow to not provide negative coverage of LAPD in exchange for greater access to information, the LA Times has been as corrupt and compromised as it gets.

You REALLY don't know what you are talking about. Just because other posters here make for easily debunked material does NOT mean you are correct.

[CA4Now]

Originally Posted by JohnG72

Have you read ANY of the Podesta emails? The one from Podesta to Carolyn Curiel, wife of the judge Curiel in Trumps court case is VERY interesting and a fish wrap like the times might actually get readership from running back the salacious backstory to that.

But they won't because they don't want Trump to win.

Oops..."the fish wrap" already covered that story.

[NewbieHere]

It doesn't matter for California. I don't read the LA times for a reason. It went into bankruptcy for a reason.

[Ruth4Truth]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

Trump has presented himself to the press in the ways he has to deliberately leverage free media coverage. It has been a conscious keystone strategy for him. If you don't like it: wag your finger at the clown who ran out into the center ring with his horn and antics.

Frankly, I'm surprised and disappointed that the media indulged him and gave him all that free press. A media blackout would have been more appropriate.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by JohnG72

Have you read ANY of the Podesta emails? The one from Podesta to Carolyn Curiel, wife of the judge Curiel in Trumps court case is VERY interesting and a fish wrap like the times might actually get readership from running back the salacious backstory to that.

But they won't because they don't want Trump to win.

I assure you that from the days Patrick McGreevy(the Times writer who broke the LAPD Rampart scandal)made a deal with former LAPD deputy chief in charge of LAPD internal affairs Michael Berkow to not provide negative coverage of LAPD in exchange for greater access to information, the LA Times has been as corrupt and compromised as it gets.

You REALLY don't know what you are talking about. Just because other posters here make for easily debunked material does NOT mean you are correct.

Nothing you are pointing out negates the truth of what I wrote. Zip. The Times isn't writing fiction. They are covering real issues with verified, factual, investigative reporting. And doing a very thorough job of it.

The Times isn't a public service organization supported by taxes, mandating equal coverage of issues. The Times, like the Washington Post, NY Times, and many other "liberal leaning" media is a for-profit business that sells a quality product with integrity.

The Times and other media can choose to cover exclusively negative stories about Trump or other issues - and still maintain journalistic integrity as long as their reporting is honest, accurate, and balanced in disclosures. Triple fact-checked and sourced with qualified vetting and quotations.

Where journalistic integrity is compromised is in media such as Breitbart and FOX and a bazillion other speciously blogged rags that don't bother to fact-check and source responsibly and honestly.

Profit media is perfectly within bounds to express and support an ideology as long as it restricts its expression to two venues:
1. editorial / opinion pages expressly identified as such
2. choice of stories to cover, as long as done within the parameters of journalistic ethics.
The Times does this. They win Pulitzers doing it. Breitbart and FOX don't. That's the difference.

If Donald Trump doesn't like the way he's being covered, it's incumbent on him to change how he presents himself to the media.

Perhaps some study of the art and craft of journalism, its ethics and standards, would help you know better what YOU are talking about.

[CA4Now]

Originally Posted by NewbieHere

I don't read the LA times for a reason. It went into bankruptcy for a reason.

Like most other print media, dealing with the challenges of traditional media in the digital age.

[Big-Bucks]

Originally Posted by V8 Vega

The Times is no newspaper.

You have to listen to AM talk radio or log on to DrudgeReport or tune into Fox News if you want actual truthful news.