For years, since 9/11, the accusation has arisen from the Right that the Major Media (including the Los Angeles Times) has been editing and shaping the news to their own world view--one which is against President Bush, against the War on Terror and against the invasion and subsequent reconstruction of Iraq. Personally I believe that this comes from laziness: the editors of publications such as the Los Angeles Times are too lazy to see outside their own world view to present an unbalanced presentation of the news. And while this is nothing new (William Randalph Hearst, owner of a variety of newspapers at the turn of the last century, famously said about the Spanish-American War: "You provide the pictures, and I'll provide the war"), it's only striking today after 9/11 gave us the "great political sorting out"--half of the country are fervently for the War on Terror, half against, and none are in the middle.
Today, that rather famous "conservative" (not!) Barbara Streisand, discovers that the Los Angeles Times edits content to suit themselves--by editing her letter to the editor to excise her key point, that she is canceling her subscription because of recent editorial changes. One has to wonder, regardless of one's political affiliation, if the Los Angeles Times is willing to alter the content of a simple letter to the editor to shape it to suit their own needs, how willing the Los Angeles Times is willing to alter the content of other more notable news sources to fit their world view.
|
|
|
|