Today’s question was:
What’s eating the L.A. Times? Would the paper be better off outside the Tribune Co. empire? All week, Marc Cooper and Patrick Frey discuss the future of The Times and journalism in Southern California.
The ‘readers’ respond. Some say it’s the Chandler family’s fault. Some blame their paper delivery people. Some blame Sam Zell.
Then there were these comments:
For years you have encouraged the increased immigration of Third World people and their numerous offspring to this area. Now you have a population that cannot read a sophisticated English-language newspaper.
Advocacy journalism is the reason why I stopped subscribing. The only difference between the Times and Lou Dobbs is that Dobbs is less secretive. With Southern California being on the illegal immigration frontline, there is a great story to tell from the perspective of our economic, political, human-behavioral, and education systems, a portent for the nation. However, as Lou Dobbs reports only a certain view, so does the Times. For example, last week, the NY Times and others reported that illegal immigration was the EU’s biggest concern. The Times did not. While La Raza and others may protest Dobbs, we protest the Times’ by unsubscribing.
It’s simple. We don’t trust what you write and you don’t have the guts to just admit you are pushing an agenda.. Your PRO-Illegal immigration stance is a real turn off to your subscribers, which made me cancel my subscription.. How can the Times be going under there are plenty of Illegals to subcribe now, so you don’t need me paying for subscriptions.