Posted on 02/11/2005 4:44:15 AM PST by pookie18
When he called to cancel his 25-year subscription to the Los Angeles Times, he was made an extraordinary offer, reports the web logger Laer (Cheat Seeking Missiles).
The LATimes offered to sell him the newspaper without the news and opinion sections, Laer said. He was thunderstruck.
"How often must the beleaguered circulation department...be dealing with calls like mine, for them to come up with a special like this? How many late night workers do they employ to strip down opinion-sanitized versions of their paper in order to cling to a diminishing subscription base?"
Hundreds of readers cancelled their subscriptions to the Philadelphia Inquirer during the election, and the circulation department there is making its editors call to try to lure them back.
Since the primary reason given for the cancellations was the Inquirer's 21 straight days of editorials praising John Kerry and attacking President Bush, it's doubtful those who wrote the editorials will be effective salespeople.
(Excerpt) Read more at jewishworldreview.com ...
Meanwhile, in related news, Jeff Gannon is driven out of the WH press corpse (sic) for not joining the pack in asking exclusively tendentious, hostile, "gotcha" questions at news conferences.
Dan
How does that solve the problem of opinion masquerading as news in the rest of that rag?
"The LATimes offered to sell him the newspaper without the news and opinion sections"
Lol. That's funny. And pathetic
I wouldn't subscribe to a news-free version of the newspaper, even if it was free, even if I had three 6-week-old puppies. The classified ads, comics, coupons and horoscope are the money makers that pay the salaries of the idiots who write that leftist propaganda. Fire them all.
I can see leaving out the "opinion" section...but if you leave out the "news" sections of a "newspaper", what is left? Ads and classifieds???
Good point. I do feel that JG would've stayed were it not for harassment of his family.
Sports and Entertainment (Style or Calendar or Arts or whatever they call it).
I feel two things:
1. I find his behavior odd. I know, not being in his shoes, it's easy to judge. But I think he had an opportunity to expose one of our worst internal enemies: the MSM. He seemed to buckle and run awfully fast. Not, as I've said, a profile in courage.
2. If I were smarter and a better news-story researcher, I'd do a major essay on the GOLDEN OPPORTUNITY that both he and the GOP seem to be missing now.
"Gannon" is targeted because he is the only reporter there not on the attack, not asking questions NONE of us would ask or care about, saying things red staters would say. Now we have NO representation in the WH press corpse, NO ONE asking our questions.
Gannon, for instance, blew a rich opportunity in his interview with Blitzer. Blitzer said, "...you wore your politics on your sleeve. Everyone knew you were very conservative." He simply responded, "Absolutely." He should have said, "That was a main difference between me and the others, and it is what they hate about my. I was open and honest. Their politics are equally plain: they are extreme liberal absolutists. They align with a slim minority in the country, ideologically. They just aren't honest about it, and hide behind this lie of 'objectivity.'"
I fear the moment's passing.
Dan
Features pieces.
And even then they will probably spotlight some homosexual actor or something, so you would still get the LA Times agenda.
Is this the same guy who was forced to resign from USA Today after he was caught playing the Jayson Blair game?
Again, I agree with most of what you wrote. However, Les Kinsolving has asked some "Gannon-type" questions as well. Would've liked JG to have fought harder...w/o knowing his situation though...
Exactly. A lot of it's in that "not knowing his situation." And I know VERY well how having dependents changes the whole calculation process.
But from where I sit, it seems as if he caved without a struggle. What if he'd been bolder, reported what a target he'd become, made the issue I'm suggesting THE issue, suggested that EVERY other reporter target EVERY other reporter with the sort of scruting he'd come under? What web sites are associated with David Gregory's (am I remembering that name right?) name? Where have his contributions gone? Is there a pattern in HIS questions? (We know there is.)
Why is a radically left bias acceptable, but a right bias not?
THAT should have been made, and still can be made, THE issue.
Dan
Why is a radically left bias acceptable, but a right bias not?
THAT should have been made, and still can be made, THE issue.
In total agreement...
D'oh! Of course, "scruting" = "scrutiny." Though it does sound like it should be a word.....
However, being Kerry sycophants, they probably have flip-flopping down to a science... ;-)
Whenever my paper calls to try and get me to re-subscribe, I simply tell them that for years their editorial board has advocated candidates and positions that would raise my taxes. Not subscribing is my way of giving them the same medicine that they advocate for me. If I'm feeling particularly cross that day, I will add that my goal is to put them out of business.
They call regularly every month or two, so I guess they like the pain.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
