[RonDog]

ping

[RonDog]

"...The left-leaning newsroom isn't going to be corrected by editors sending memos, but by market forces feeding on the Internet's destruction of the oligopoly in news distribution.

Stewart pens her article, I link to it here, it's then blogged by folks who never visit her site, and it gets posted and chewed over at various bulletin boards everywhere from FreeRepublic to DemocraticUnderground.

The Times can neither make the story go away nor spin it because opinion elites no longer depend upon news elites to set the table..." - Hugh Hewitt

.

If you listen to Hugh Hewitt, or read his WND commentaries,
this PING list is for YOU!
Please post your comments, and BUMP!

(If you want OFF - or ON - my "Hugh Hewitt PING list" - please let me know)

[freeangel]

But is the Times even clean enough to be used as toilet paper?

[RonDog]

PART ONE from today's www.hughhewitt.com:

Posted at 1:59 PM, Pacific

I have invited pastor, theologian and author Mark Roberts to be my guest today to discuss truth in the text of political campaigns. I had recommended his new book to my audience a couple of weeks ago, and many of you have in fact read it and found it enormously challenging.

Now his visit coincides with the decision of the Los Angeles Times to launch an attack on General Boykin. The Times' story this morning is a thinly disguised demand that evangelical Christians not speak about their faith. This will be a prime subject with Dr. Roberts.

Many of you are emailing me your thoughts on this morning's article attacking General Boykin. I suggest you forward them as well to john.carroll@latimes.com and the Chairman of the Tribune Company, John Madigan.

It is important that people who respect General Boykin's service express support for him to the Department of Defense.

[liberallarry]

Hugh Hewitt complains about the elite media...which is correct. The entire media, including the blogospher, talk radio, etc., now makes all views pretty much available to anyone who cares to look.

The elite media - meaning the leading newspapers and television networks - can fairly be criticized for having a liberal bias. But since people have readily available alternate sources the complaints lose their force. In our society people can choose their views and news sources can report as they see fit.

The lazy, stupid, ignorant, and blind get what they deserve.

[mrsmith]

"bulletin boards everywhere from FreeRepublic to DemocraticUnderground. "
Gee, what did we ever do to him that he pairs us with such?

Do the "elite opinion makers" delude themselves into thinking web forums are all the same, or are they trying to delude others?

(Yeah, or he's just trying to be non-partisan.)

[Brad’s Gramma]

Choice is the answer, and people are choosing not to read the Los Angeles Times.

Ya got THAT right! Hey, LA TIMES...!!! The day that you gave me the free copy of your "paper"...the day AFTER the election? I threw it away. It felt SO good.

Oh, and the lady who laughed at the telemarketer and said no WAY would I subscribe? That was me.

[DoctorZIn]

This post has been added to the… California In Transition- Must read Threads!

Want on our daily or major news ping lists? Freepmail DoctorZin

[evilsmoker]

Stewart pens her article, I link to it here, it's then...

Give me a break -- he's taking credit for the story going national? This guy has way too high of an opinion of himself.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

The Times can neither make the story go away nor spin it because opinion elites no longer depend upon news elites to set the table. They can order in.

The blogosphere is an almost pure realization of "freedom of the press." It's almost free to post your opinion in such a way that huge swaths of potential voters nationwide can--if they so choose read it.

The LA Times has freedom of the press, so they can print tendentious political tripe 'til the cows come home. And they can even claim that its political tripe is "objective." The only problem is the fact that we-the-people have other sources of political tripe, and we can evaluate those sources and decide what we believe without so much as a "by your leave" to The LA Times.

[ladyinred]

One of the reporters on the Times is from Fresno, and he was on our local talk radio yesterday trying to defend the paper's hit piece on Arnold. It was disgusting, and every caller was angry and skeptical of his defense. He denied that they were after Arnold and ignored the stories about Davis. It was pathetic.

When the host mentioned that 1000 people had cancelled the paper, he said, " That happens all of the time, and they'll get over it and start taking it again." The arrogance of that statement makes me hope that not only will they not start it again, but that more will tell them to shove it.

[Lancey Howard]

bttt

[RonDog]

See also these NEW threads:

General Muzzled After Describing War on Terror as Battle With Satan
			Posted by Tumbleweed_Connection On 10/17/2003 7:14 AM PDT with 36 comments NewsMax ^ | 10/17/03 | AP
General Boykin and the Armor of God
			Posted by JohnHuang2 On 10/17/2003 6:17 AM PDT with 12 comments FrontPageMagazine.com ^ | Friday, October 17, 2003 | Lowell Ponte
General: Christian U.S. fighting Islam
			Posted by JohnHuang2 On 10/17/2003 12:18 AM PDT with 14 comments WorldNetDaily.com ^ | Friday, October 17, 2003
Top U.S. General Says Muslims Worship 'Idol'; Islamic group calls for Reassignment
			Posted by chance33_98 On 10/16/2003 6:49 PM PDT with 15 comments releases.usnewswire.com ^
God Put Bush In Charge, Says General Hunting Bin Laden
			Posted by blam On 10/16/2003 6:05 PM PDT with 78 comments The Telegraph (UK) ^ | 10-17-2003 | David Rennie
Rumsfeld defends general who commented on war, Satan
			Posted by Bobby777 On 10/16/2003 5:58 PM PDT with 65 comments CNN.Com / AP ^ | Thursday, October 16, 2003 Posted: 2:25 PM EDT (1825 GMT) | Associated Press
Rumsfeld defends general who commented on war, Satan. (Rumsfeld shows courage)
			Posted by .cnI redruM On 10/16/2003 12:48 PM PDT with 30 comments CNN ^ | Thursday, October 16, 2003 | Associated Press

[hotpotato]

That and the availability of USA Today on a driveway near your front door.

I've canceled my Time and Newsweek magazine subscriptions because I got sick of the biased reporting. So... is USA Today a better source, the?