The
Los Angeles Times is a disaster on wheels, and
this is only the latest example. It's one thing for a paper to have bias -- all news outlets do. But the
Times has habitually combined bias with real stupidity.
In 1999, the paper made a deal with the Staples Center arena to produce content about its development. Writers and editors did not know about the financial arrangement.
Isn't it the job of editors to guard the line between advertising and editorial?
In 2000, the paper printed

this cartoon, which appeared to accuse Jews of worshipping hatred. Jewish and pro-Israel groups assailed the cartoon; its author, Michael Ramirez, explained that the man on the right is Muslim. But other than the praying position, there is nothing to indicate that the man is Muslim (he's wearing a
keffah, but you can barely see it). It looks like they're at the Western Wall, a place that's sacred to Jews.
Isn't it the job of editors to notice and preclude potential confusion like that?
In 2004, Editorial Editor Michael Kinsley, an otherwise smart guy, decided that the public should be able to "wiki" -- rewrite --
Times editorials online. The predictable outcome resembled a grafitti wall.
Isn't it the job of editors to make judgments about what should get published and what shouldn't, rather than leaving it up to individual whim?
This year, the
Times chose to have it both ways, by vigorously defending the right of others to publish the Mohammed cartoons, but not doing it:
For our part, The Times has not reprinted these insensitive images, even as a means of shedding light on the controversy in Europe. But it is not necessary to agree with these cartoons to defend another's right to publish them.
Let me get this straight: The
Times won't publish something that's insensitive, that it doesn't agree with, even to shed light on an issue.
Someone please explain to me, then, how this repugnant piece of trash saw the light of day:
I don't support conservatism in its current iteration, and I support black conservatives even less...
Here is a man who, like most black conservatives, has had to do an awful lot of personal and political rationalizing to pay dues...
That has unfortunately, but not always unfairly, invited comparisons to slave times, when the most loyal blacks were those who worked in closest proximity to their white masters — house Negroes, as they were derisively known...
...that might have been reasonable if they were eventually granted the same status as the whites they so assiduously served. They weren't, of course; race has always mattered. And it matters now, though the dynamic is more subtle and devious...
It's hard to imagine that such compromises and cognitive dissonance don't exact a psychological toll at some point, and Allen's alleged dabbling in crime might have been that point for him.
Do the
Times editors agree with this? Do they not see that this is insensitive -- no, overtly offensive -- to any member of a minority group who is conservative or Republican? Do they not see the racism in this? The incoherence?
The Times won't publish the Mohammed cartoons, but will publish an op-ed piece asserting that Claude Allen became a thief because of the natural psychological ramifications of being a black Republican. That's breathtaking hypocrisy.
Isn't it the job of editors to maintain consistency, and enforce their own editorial rules?
The only consistencies at the
Times are liberal bias, low standards, and intellectual laziness, not necessarily in that order.
If the paper's circulation were rising, or the respect for the
Times or newspapers in general in public discourse was increasing, I'd have to think that despite it all, the editors were doing
something right, at least from a market perspective. But that is not the case.
There is no explanation or excuse for the intellectually vacuous behavior at the LA broadsheet.