See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Trackbacks

1. Junior High School Confidential « his vorpal sword
2. Michelle Malkin » The LA Times gets conned

Trackback URL

Comments

1. #1
   On October 31st, 2007 at 9:57 pm, 3Steps said:

   Half the time I can’t figure out if they are just really that freaking naive… or just such pathological liars that they can no longer tell the difference.

2. #2
   On October 31st, 2007 at 10:03 pm, swj719AWG said:

   I really think it’s just some VERY elaborate, very long April Fool’s joke.

   That they started April 1st, 2000…

3. #3
   On October 31st, 2007 at 10:13 pm, josetheguerilla said:

   This should be a crime. Financial accountability is not enough. Somebody should go to jail for this. Why is the press only accountable to itself? I thought only Steven Segal was Above the Law. MM, thank you for covering this.

4. #4
   On October 31st, 2007 at 10:26 pm, AlohaGuy said:

   I’m getting an Error on Patterico’s site.

5. #5
   On October 31st, 2007 at 10:31 pm, AlohaGuy said:

   Errors? Don’t you know who we are?

6. #6
   On October 31st, 2007 at 10:37 pm, puhiawa said:

   I can’t get the page up. But the problem for the Times is a bit more than this story. Like the NYTs they have become a one Party paper. As such they are beholden to the Democratic Party and it’s loyal readers to keep it in business. The editors have destroyed the credibility of the paper. And through social intercourse contaminated most of the other papers in the region with their version of ‘intelligence and reason’, which is anything but. This has allowed the LA Times to survive, there being no competition. But there were consequences to this move to embrace the Anti-American hard left, illegal immigrants and Islamic protectionism. First the local midsized advertisers left, then the readers, and now the big boys are walking. They are left with purely Democratic Party readers and oligarchical corporations as advertisers. If it were not the MSM reporting on the MSM this paper would be no more important than the Penny Saver.

7. #7
   On October 31st, 2007 at 10:40 pm, AlohaGuy said:

   Clarification
   #4, link error
   #5, joking about the LA Times, referencing both the reporter in Iraq (with the non-existant Knight-Ridder company), and Michelle’s “I can’t keep track of you all” comment on the Halloween thread.

   OK, long day…

8. #8
   On October 31st, 2007 at 10:45 pm, Michelle Malkin said:

   The link works.

9. #9
   On October 31st, 2007 at 10:58 pm, Patterico said:

   Sorry, guys. I fixed a typo and ended up putting it into draft status for a few minutes.

   It’s fixed now.

10. #10
    On October 31st, 2007 at 10:59 pm, AlohaGuy said:

    Thanks, it’s working now.

    Ms. Gold, Rutten’s assessments don’t have to match mine, but they do have to match the facts. They don’t. And it is a shameful episode for your paper that the editors don’t seem to care.

    Shameful is right!

11. #11
    On October 31st, 2007 at 11:13 pm, hawkeye54 said:

    A couple of years ago, I once got a call from a Times sales rep asking me to subscribe. I told him I already subscribe for the Sunday edition, and THAT was just for the sports, coupons, comics, and crossword and I didn’t want a daily delivery because I hated their news reporting.

    After pausing for a moment he asked, “Well if we just delivered the sections you like would you reconsider?”

    I laughed and hung up.

    Already desperate years ago. It surprises me the paper still exists.

12. #12
    On October 31st, 2007 at 11:13 pm, SteveP said:

    Those “silly little facts” just don’t matter to leftists. It’s all about the idea and the “emotional appeal” of the story, so it’s ok with them if they mangle every single fact in the process. And this is why you can never ever trust liberals with things like facts and logic, because they just do. not. process. period.

13. #13
    On October 31st, 2007 at 11:15 pm, redc1c4 said:

    how can it be a shameful episode for the Times? they have no shame.

    my best day of this year was when Household 6 agreed to cancel the house subscription to that rag after they irritated her with billing and delivery issues once too often. maybe if the delivery people had been able to read/speak english, they could have figured out what days we were supposed to get the paper, and where the house was.

14. #14
    On October 31st, 2007 at 11:20 pm, hawkeye54 said:

    Those “silly little facts” just don’t matter to leftists. It’s all about the idea and the “emotional appeal” of the story, so it’s ok with them if they mangle every single fact in the process. And this is why you can never ever trust liberals with things like facts and logic, because they just do. not. process. period.
    

    You know those peg boards for toddlers. Liberals, when they were toddlers, were the ones who stubbornly jammed the wrong pegs into the wrong holes.

    They still do it, figuratively, as adults. If it doesn’t fit in their mind - MAKE IT FIT!

15. #15
    On October 31st, 2007 at 11:30 pm, jimC said:

    It really doesn’t surprise me that they won’t correct their errors. They, like the rest of the MSM and the majority of the Democratic party have a vested interest in seeing our soldiers as either victims or perpetrators, and the GWOT (and specifically the war in Iraq) as a failure. They can’t admit that they lied or were wrong.

    Jim C

16. #16
    On October 31st, 2007 at 11:39 pm, Xrlq said:

    Un. Freaking. Believable.

    As one who spent most of his life in Southern California before finally moving to the United States for political asylum last year, I beg to differ. This is the same “news” paper that has convinced itself that a reversal of Roe v. Wade would outlaw abortion, that there is “no bar” to any resident of State X purchasing a prohibited gun in State Y, and that just because a voter initiative says that “only a marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized in California,” that doesn’t mean that only a marriage between a man and woman is valid and recognized in California. And that’s just naming a few examples my crappy little blog has documented; Patterico has documented many, many more during the same period.

    Given their track record, unfreakingbelievable would be if they actually corrected a story like this one.

17. #17
    On October 31st, 2007 at 11:40 pm, Michelle Malkin said:

    Yeah. I stand corrected and, unlike the Times, will correct post-haste.

18. #18
    On November 1st, 2007 at 9:07 am, malkin_fan said:

    “L.A. Times columnists, Rutten among them, are encouraged to use their columns as forums for their fact-based assessments of news events. His assessments might not match yours, but that doesn’t mean that his assessments warrant correction.”

    I think that really explains it all. They are not interested in printing FACTS, they are the Dan Rather of print.

19. #19
    On November 1st, 2007 at 9:11 am, JHSII said:

    Not unbelieveable to me. Remember that Walter Duranty still has his Pulitzer.

20. #20
    On November 1st, 2007 at 9:17 am, MrVIBEMAN said:

    What astounds me is that anyone is surprised by this, or that anyone who supports blogs like MM’s would even bother to read the LA Times or NYT anymore.

    The people who read and believe those types of stories are typically Lefties who are frothing at the mouth for those stories anyway, and the Conservatives who read those stories and react to them are just making news for the Times by keeping them in the ‘news’.

    The Times should report the news, not BE the news.

    I haven’t picked up a newspaper in 5 years. (Chicago Sun Times, another Progressive rag.) They’re all just garbage.

    The only place to get real news with limited spin these days is on the internet.

    I guess it’s important to ‘know your enemy’, so I can see why people might want to read the times, but reporting on the errors they spew could develop into a full time job. I’ll pass.

21. #21
    On November 1st, 2007 at 9:18 am, MrVIBEMAN said:

    BTW, what does ‘Fact-based’ mean? I thought that was a term for novelists and Hollywood execs, not journalists.

22. #22
    On November 1st, 2007 at 11:01 am, Cosmo said:

    Man, can’t anyone here recognize sarcasm anymore?

    /sarc

23. #23
    On November 1st, 2007 at 11:35 am, Ditkaca said:

    The entire Opinion section of the LA Times has had BDS for years. I read it occasionally for a good laugh.

    It’s bad enough that the OC Register is starting to lean left. Especially with Columnists like Yvette Cabrera who is an illegal sympathizer (surprise!)

    I only go to the paper now for the sports. The rest is used to lay down on the table for the kid’s art projects

24. #24
    On November 1st, 2007 at 12:17 pm, geminicontender said:

    Tiempos de la Latina Americanas. The only supporters of the L.A. Times and they don’t have enough money to keep it from going down….just like the NY Times. Hallelujah!!!

25. #25
    On November 1st, 2007 at 3:55 pm, davidleerothmann said:

    Why would they correct anything? According to The Narrative, everything Beauchamp reported was true, even if it wasn’t accurate. It fits their view of violent, illiterate rednecks serving in an illegal war designed to inflict suffering on brown people and make money for Chimpy Mc Halliburton. This the gospel according to the bi-coastal, leftist media, and all the documentation, proof, and facts in the world will never change it.