canceled.2021.1
#AMERICAISDEAD
I am very worried about her. Given all of the bad news that has been coming out about her messiah, I would suspect she is curled up in a fetal position somewhere sobbing hysterically
Can someone check on Desh?
- Thread starter canceled.2021.1
- Start date
canceled.2021.1
#AMERICAISDEAD
Yeah, he was so successful with his last venture and he has to find a place to spend all of that oil money he just go
canceled.2021.1
#AMERICAISDEAD
Yep, he made big bucks, but as a business venture it was a colossal failure. I am just heartened to see that you are OK with oil money
cawacko
Well-known member
At least your honest about it being a liberal paper even though your suggestions that liberals wouldn't read a local paper that doesn't have a liberal slant is interesting. I personally stopped reading it because the sports section is run by a bunch Superfreaks, pro-UCLA, anti-USC people.
The benefit of Kochs buying L.A. Times
As you read this, I am surely reading e-mails from my former Los Angeles Times colleagues angry about the following sentence:
I'm rooting for the Koch brothers to buy the L.A. Times.
For the record, I am no fan of Charles and David Koch, the billionaire brothers who own various polluting companies and have spent shockingly large amounts of money in very secretive ways on behalf of libertarian and conservative causes. And I love the Times, which is not only my hometown paper but also a member of my family. My mother worked there for 25 years (as a correspondent, she once had to handle getting publisher Otis Chandler's hunting guns back to L.A. from the Hong Kong airport), and I was a reporter there for eight years.
But the company that owns the Times is putting its newspaper division up for sale, and the Kochs reportedly want to buy it. In California, where the devil may be more popular than the Kochs, this has driven some people crazy. Former colleagues are talking about quitting. Liberal readers are talking boycott. A leading progressive group is calling for the state pension fund to stop working with the financial firms that would sell to the Kochs.
This anti-Koch anger is understandable - but it's also an argument in favor of the Kochs buying the Times.
To be vital, papers must do more than serve a community; they must engage it. Papers should have public faces and publish things that the public loves - or loves to hate. Unfortunately, most American newspapers today are owned by little-known rich people or faceless corporations, and it's rare that papers do things that people love or hate. The L.A. Times, while still among the best in the country, suffers from this malady. It's unthreatening and predictable.
Enter the Kochs. Simply by expressing interest in buying the Times, the billionaire brothers have made the paper a topic of conversation and community concern in a way that the paper's content can't match. Just imagine if the Kochs actually bought it.
I believe that Koch ownership of the Times would have two possible outcomes - both of them good for Los Angeles.
The first and more likely outcome would be that the brothers are unable to change the newspaper as much as they would like (or Angelenos fear). These days, newspaper owners matter much less than they once did; economic change and technology-empowered readers are forcing the hands of owners, no matter their politics. And if the Kochs want to maintain their readership and not lose the Times' most talented journalists, they'll have to accommodate themselves to Los Angeles. This has been the dynamic in San Diego, where "Papa" Doug Manchester, the new conservative owner of the Union-Tribune, has run some strange editorials but otherwise publishes much the same paper as his predecessors.
The Kochs probably would push a libertarian line on the editorial page, and maybe in the political news coverage, but that would actually be a healthy check on the labor-left establishment that runs the city and the state - and also a gift to that establishment, furnishing it with an enemy against which to rally.
The second outcome would be that the Kochs follow their worst instincts and foolishly impose their party line on the paper, thus losing readers and journalists. In that case, they would give Los Angeles and its most ambitious journalists a huge opening to do what the city long ago should have done (yet, appallingly, never has): create its own media, grounded in L.A., that doesn't depend on nutty rich people or out-of-town corporations.
The great mid-century California chronicler Carey McWilliams once wrote, L.A. is "not a neutral land," for "it has long aroused emotional reactions ranging from intense admiration to profound disgust." Today's neutral Times, for all its excellence, is a poor fit for our region, whereas the Kochs would bring back good old-fashioned disgust. A hundred years ago, California Gov. Hiram Johnson said of Times owner Harrison Gray Otis: "He sits there in senile dementia, with gangrened heart and rotting brain, grimacing at every reform, chattering impotently at all things that are decent; frothing, fuming, violently gibbering, going down to his grave in snarling infamy."
I, for one, can hardly wait for Jerry Brown to uphold California tradition - and say something similar about the Kochs.
http://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/article/The-benefit-of-Kochs-buying-L-A-Times-4500511.php
The benefit of Kochs buying L.A. Times
As you read this, I am surely reading e-mails from my former Los Angeles Times colleagues angry about the following sentence:
I'm rooting for the Koch brothers to buy the L.A. Times.
For the record, I am no fan of Charles and David Koch, the billionaire brothers who own various polluting companies and have spent shockingly large amounts of money in very secretive ways on behalf of libertarian and conservative causes. And I love the Times, which is not only my hometown paper but also a member of my family. My mother worked there for 25 years (as a correspondent, she once had to handle getting publisher Otis Chandler's hunting guns back to L.A. from the Hong Kong airport), and I was a reporter there for eight years.
But the company that owns the Times is putting its newspaper division up for sale, and the Kochs reportedly want to buy it. In California, where the devil may be more popular than the Kochs, this has driven some people crazy. Former colleagues are talking about quitting. Liberal readers are talking boycott. A leading progressive group is calling for the state pension fund to stop working with the financial firms that would sell to the Kochs.
This anti-Koch anger is understandable - but it's also an argument in favor of the Kochs buying the Times.
To be vital, papers must do more than serve a community; they must engage it. Papers should have public faces and publish things that the public loves - or loves to hate. Unfortunately, most American newspapers today are owned by little-known rich people or faceless corporations, and it's rare that papers do things that people love or hate. The L.A. Times, while still among the best in the country, suffers from this malady. It's unthreatening and predictable.
Enter the Kochs. Simply by expressing interest in buying the Times, the billionaire brothers have made the paper a topic of conversation and community concern in a way that the paper's content can't match. Just imagine if the Kochs actually bought it.
I believe that Koch ownership of the Times would have two possible outcomes - both of them good for Los Angeles.
The first and more likely outcome would be that the brothers are unable to change the newspaper as much as they would like (or Angelenos fear). These days, newspaper owners matter much less than they once did; economic change and technology-empowered readers are forcing the hands of owners, no matter their politics. And if the Kochs want to maintain their readership and not lose the Times' most talented journalists, they'll have to accommodate themselves to Los Angeles. This has been the dynamic in San Diego, where "Papa" Doug Manchester, the new conservative owner of the Union-Tribune, has run some strange editorials but otherwise publishes much the same paper as his predecessors.
The Kochs probably would push a libertarian line on the editorial page, and maybe in the political news coverage, but that would actually be a healthy check on the labor-left establishment that runs the city and the state - and also a gift to that establishment, furnishing it with an enemy against which to rally.
The second outcome would be that the Kochs follow their worst instincts and foolishly impose their party line on the paper, thus losing readers and journalists. In that case, they would give Los Angeles and its most ambitious journalists a huge opening to do what the city long ago should have done (yet, appallingly, never has): create its own media, grounded in L.A., that doesn't depend on nutty rich people or out-of-town corporations.
The great mid-century California chronicler Carey McWilliams once wrote, L.A. is "not a neutral land," for "it has long aroused emotional reactions ranging from intense admiration to profound disgust." Today's neutral Times, for all its excellence, is a poor fit for our region, whereas the Kochs would bring back good old-fashioned disgust. A hundred years ago, California Gov. Hiram Johnson said of Times owner Harrison Gray Otis: "He sits there in senile dementia, with gangrened heart and rotting brain, grimacing at every reform, chattering impotently at all things that are decent; frothing, fuming, violently gibbering, going down to his grave in snarling infamy."
I, for one, can hardly wait for Jerry Brown to uphold California tradition - and say something similar about the Kochs.
http://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/article/The-benefit-of-Kochs-buying-L-A-Times-4500511.php
cawacko
Well-known member
How would a 100+ year old paper die the minute they buy it?
cawacko
Well-known member
Not sure what that has to do with anything but I don't hate the left coast. I've lived on the left coast for 30 years. I wouldn't live here if I hated it. I've never said I've hated it so not sure where you got that idea from and not sure what that has to do with the LA Times. Talk about random.
canceled.2021.1
#AMERICAISDEAD
I didn't say it was off the air. I said it was a failure. It was. That isn't a lie. Unless you can show me what a ratings juggernaut it was.
Cancel 2016.11
Darla
It is very interesting information though. If someone was doing a psychological workup on you that'd in there. You're in Pelosi country, San Francisco. The famous San Francisco of "San Francisco values" and "Pelosi's San Francisco values". That is like me moving to freaking Mississippi. Something's going on.
Yep, he made big bucks, but as a business venture it was a colossal failure. I am just heartened to see that you are OK with oil money
ROFL
I thought she would have put a gun in her mouth a long time ago, especially when Al Gore fired Keith Olbermann. According to her, Olbermann was her God.
Superfreaks, oh, gawd no, that's bad.
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
you could send the IRS to do that for you.....