I got suckered into subscribing to the LA Times. I was in a supermarket, and a guy offered me a pretty good deal to subscribe for a year, with a supermarket gift card etc. If it was actually a decent newspaper, I wouldn't mind the price. It's just that it's so god-awfully biased. The part that actually annoys me the most, because it is the most frequent abuser of anyone who doesn't have a liberal bent, is actually one of their cartoon strips. It's called "La Cucaracha" by Lalo Alcaraz. Now Alcaraz can draw as many rapidly anti-Republican and anti-conservative (and indeed anti-centrist) cartoons as he likes. But why the heck does the LA Times think I would want to pay money to be insulted on a regular basis? Today Alcaraz jumps on the anti-Glenn Beck bandwagon, calling him a clown. I'm not a particular Beck fan, but it's pretty friggin' insulting that the reason they are so hostile to Beck is not because of the way he's a blow-hard (which he is), but because he keeps coming up with true information that destroys left-wing idiots. But it wasn't the cartoon that got me worked up enough to write about this issue ... it's the two stories about Acorn that are annoying the heck out of me.
Acorn story number 1: It's focused on how poor Acorn has had to close many of is offices and stop taking new clients because of all these scandals. It's a long lament about the fate of poor poor Acorn, but don't worry, the LA Times tells us,

"they may have to shrink back, they may have to rebrand. They'll be smaller, but they'll survive."
Hoorah! Acorn will survive. Let's all hold hands and sing Kumbayah! Where is the condemnation? Where is the outrage at this organization? Most telling is the conclusion to the story, when they quote ex-Acorn worker Latrell Smith, who is now working in an Acorn clone called Action Now.
"I joined ACORN because I wanted to make a difference in my community. Before the videos came out, I could never have imagined something like that happening in ACORN." Now he said, "I wonder if we could be next."
Those are the final words of the story ... but it typifies the whole approach. ACORN isn't bad because it's guilty of vote fraud and actively supports child prostitution and human trafficking ... not, it's all about making a difference in the community (I guess more child prostitutes is a difference). Most of all, the "I wonder if we could be next." It's like it's just a horrible accident that all these scandals have broken out. They're just the victims of terrible right-wing evil hate-mongers. The fact that they stand utterly condemned by their own words and actions doesn't seem to be even considered. So then ... what does this quote really tell us about Action Now? It tells us the this bunch of "community organizers" must also be guilty of some pretty horrendous deeds ... because if they weren't, then how could they be "next"? What exactly does Latrell Smith have to be nervous about? Of course, the LA Times isn't interested in asking any of those questions ... no, it's all about the poor poor community groups that are having to close their doors because of "scandals". Oh dear.

Let's take another quote:

ACORN has been a top target for conservatives because of its liberal agenda. President Obama worked as an attorney for the group in the 1990s.
Well, at first sight, it seems pretty good. At least we have an acknowledgment that Obama has a relationship with this group. But THAT'S IT!!! Where's the freakin' investigative journalism? Huh? Aren't there a WHOLE BUNCH of questions that need to follow that statement? Along with some actual, you know, facts? But no, it's just linked to the fact that those awful conservatives have been targeting this poor bunch of liberals. After all, that's the cause of their problems, not the illegal activities and reprehensible practices in office after office.

The second story is marginally better, as it's about the two investigative journalists who cracked the story wide-open, despite the best efforts of the MSM to ignore ACORN as anything other than a lovely little community organization. The problems:
The story seriously understates the extent of the scandal and the number of ACORN offices involved. The story gives ACORN a "right of reply" in which they allow the organization to lie through their teeth without comment. The defense that is offered?

"In at least one case a worker was simply playing along."
This kind of nonsense can only stand and sound rational because the LA Times story hasn't made it clear just how widespread this problem has been. This is what passes for journalism at the LA Times?

So, why am I not going to renew my subscription to the LA Times? First, I'm sick of paying money to be insulted; Second, I'm sick of reading nonsense stories that I only properly understand because I've already got the full story from blog sources, and which really serve of the purpose of misrepresenting the story, rather than revealing actual information. You expect me to pay money for that? The only thing worthwhile about the LA Times from my point of view is A) the coupons that come with the paper, and B) it's kind of useful to have a pile of scrap newsprint around for various purposes. On the other hand, I'd gladly pay for a newspaper that tried its best to be objective (and this would include running stories from various different political viewpoints) and remembered that its mission is to provide information, not to persuade me to believe something. A strange idea I know, but what can I say, I'm just weird that way.

(No links, because I'm manually copying in the quotes from the print edition).