Skip to comments.
Just Cancelled My LA Times sub (VANITY)
Vanity ^
| October 6, 2003
| Self
Posted on 10/06/2003 9:44:37 AM PDT by pogo101
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-32 next last
1
posted on
10/06/2003 9:44:37 AM PDT
by
pogo101
To: pogo101
Good letter. I heard this morning that over 1,000 people have cancelled their subscriptions over this so far.
2
posted on
10/06/2003 9:45:40 AM PDT
by
mewzilla
To: FairOpinion; doodlelady; Sabertooth; RGSpincich; Robert_Paulson2; Tamsey; NormsRevenge
Vanity ping
3
posted on
10/06/2003 9:46:15 AM PDT
by
pogo101
To: All
God Bless America! God Bless This Man!
|
|
Keep Our Republic Free
Or mail checks to FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794
or you can use
PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com
|
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD AND SAY THANKS TO JIM ROBINSON! It is in the breaking news sidebar!
|
4
posted on
10/06/2003 9:47:22 AM PDT
by
Support Free Republic
(Your support keeps Free Republic going strong!)
To: mewzilla
I heard this morning that over 1,000 people have cancelled their subscriptions over this so farWell, that's just what the Times itself said in a story printed Sunday. One reasonably should suppose the actual number is far, far higher, for these reasons:
- the "over 1000" figure was in a story put to bed on Saturday evening. Many more have cancelled since then;
- the Times can and does ONLY include a cancellation in its "count" IF the cancelling subscriber goes to the trouble of explaining the reasons for the cancellation -- and many, probably most, won't explain.
5
posted on
10/06/2003 9:53:58 AM PDT
by
pogo101
To: pogo101
Hey, I just cancelled too, ten minutes ago. They're of course interested in why people are cancelling. The very pleasant woman asked if it was because of politics/Schwarzenegger; I told her it was the Times' general bias.
Good Times!
6
posted on
10/06/2003 9:54:26 AM PDT
by
Mentos
To: pogo101; Mentos
Kudos to you both.
7
posted on
10/06/2003 9:58:10 AM PDT
by
Coop
(God bless our troops!)
To: pogo101
I cancelled long ago. The great news is that they will continue to call you and mail postage paid reply enevelopes asking you to resubscribe.
So you get to tell them why you don't like them about 3-4 more times.
8
posted on
10/06/2003 9:58:31 AM PDT
by
ibbryn
(this tag intentionally left blank)
To: pogo101
- the Times can and does ONLY include a cancellation in its "count" IF the cancelling subscriber goes to the trouble of explaining the reasons for the cancellation -- and many, probably most, won't explain.My dad did. The subscription clerk is probably still trying to pry his eardrums apart...
To: pogo101
Good letter. I the same thing with the Chicago Fibune months ago. It still feels good
Prairie
10
posted on
10/06/2003 10:04:10 AM PDT
by
prairiebreeze
(I'm a monthly donor to FR. And proud of it!)
To: pogo101
DO NOT let the LA Times claim that it took that months to put the story together. Premier Magazine had a similar story with many of the same allegations over TWO YEARS ago. Also, ask the LA Times why they didn't investigate Juanita Broadrick's allegations against Bill Clinton or run stories about it during the impeachment process (given that many Republican House members cited this story as their reason for voting for impeachment, it was certainly news). Or should be believe that they are still fact checking and verifying Juanita Broadrick's story and that we'll see something published any day now?
To: prairiebreeze
I the same thing Insert word "did".
Prairie
12
posted on
10/06/2003 10:05:07 AM PDT
by
prairiebreeze
(I'm a monthly donor to FR. And proud of it!)
To: pogo101
So, what's the e-mail address for canceling the La Times subscription?
To: Shenandoah
(re Times cancellation email)
Although cancelling by email may be possible, I don't advise it. Call 1-800-LA TIMES to do it with a human being.
As to providing your reasons, you can do so in at least two ways:
1) when asked, by the phone rep, why you're cancelling; and
2) via email at
readers.rep@latimes.com .
14
posted on
10/06/2003 10:10:31 AM PDT
by
pogo101
To: pogo101
Great post.
Every couple of months I receive calls from telemarketers selling subscriptions to the NY Times. Whenever I receive these calls, I make a point of explaining in a firm but pleasant manner exactly why I will never subscribe to that newspaper.
I was very surprised to have one of them tell me that he hears this comment "all the time."
Things like this are worth remembering every time one of the parent companies of these newspapers misses its revenue targets.
15
posted on
10/06/2003 10:10:53 AM PDT
by
Alberta's Child
("To freedom, Alberta, horses . . . and women!")
To: pogo101
Good decision!!
But the endgame coverage of the recall brought out the worst bias I have seen: prominent, largely uncritical reprinting of negative charges against Arnold Schwarzenegger, coupled with fawning puff-pieces on Tom McClintock and -- apparently for the sake of being able to claim even-handedness -- mere token negative coverage of Davis. (Is it really news that Davis is fighting his image as bland? Next you'll be telling me there's unrest in the middle east.)
Trust me, this pales in comparison to their coverage of the Floriduh recount. They even censored George Will's editorial of Clinton's Legacy and had to publish an apology the next day. They are not just biased but religiously bigoted and pro-Palestinian.
We still get mail offers to resubscribe . . . I just put a copy of my subscription order to the Daily News in the postage paid return envelope and send that in.
16
posted on
10/06/2003 10:11:27 AM PDT
by
w_over_w
(FLASH OVERRIDE! Stop the sequence.)
To: pogo101
Why were you still reading it? I have not looked at a Washington Post in many years.
17
posted on
10/06/2003 10:12:41 AM PDT
by
bmwcyle
(Hillary's election to President will start a civil war)
To: pogo101
Kudos to you and your family.....each of you are to be commended, indeed, for your high degree of character and integrity despite the LA Times lack thereof....
18
posted on
10/06/2003 10:15:26 AM PDT
by
smiley
To: bmwcyle
Why were you still reading it? I have not looked at a Washington Post in many years. Inertia, Roy Rivenberg, and the Sports and Calendar sections, I suppose. But the LATimes is even leftier than the Post: at least the Post has had the courage to blast the Dems' filibustering of well-qualified conservative judges (except as to Pickering). The Times, like its New York namesake, routinely has toed the Schumer / Leahy / People For the American Way line.
19
posted on
10/06/2003 10:15:54 AM PDT
by
pogo101
To: pogo101
Should we be surprised that they even admit that much?
20
posted on
10/06/2003 10:23:29 AM PDT
by
lainie
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-32 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson