I quit reading our local rag years ago just for that reason, and encourage others to do the same. It is just now (rumor has it) that the local rag is figuring out that pandering to the moonbats is costing them, and apparently are trying to figure out how to get the 30% of their readership back that they’ve lost due to extremist moonbat positions they take.

Unfortunately, I live in a solid blue town (we even had an avowed communist on the city council for a while, and no one in years has been a councillor that had even a centrist philosophy), so it’s easier to be a socialist paper than just a NEWSPAPER THAT REPORTS THE NEWS. (What a novel idea, that.)

The NYT and the LAT are not going to worry too much about subscriptions, its the advertising dollars that make it or break it. Make your wallet choices there and the Times’ will change.

livingthedream
turn the key and smile.

From California Conservative:
Many more to see here and here.

That’s it? This military intelligence program is a matter of public interest, therefore its okay to report? And this use of “the administration” is peculiar.

It quotes a bunch of people saying how this plan was very successful in tracking down terrorist ties after 9/11. They even report on all the feds who asked them not to publish this. Then the article jumps into the details.

In regards to “freedom of the press,” we support it. Just like “freedom of religion.”* And we’ve also recognized the NY Times’ negative bias and double-standard when it comes to that.

But we’re not talking about freedom of the press to offend people and their religious beliefs. The subject issue is about whether its reasonable and responsible to jeapordize national security and put lives at risk.

Can we drink to that?

And if you think freedom of the press should be limited well I don’t know how you could support this.

Simon, let’s ponder that question for a little while longer. Yes, you may be playing the role of agent provocateur, but with all due respect to St. Guinness, you’re just not making sense. The slippery slope argument doesn’t work.

Keeping the same question, replace the word “paper” with “government” — or let’s try “media” or “citizens” or “police” or “parent”. If you apply the same logic to any of those terms (as some would argue for), what you resolve to is the state of choas.

Or do you mean to suggest that, as a civilized society, we can no longer distinguish between right and wrong, common sense, and doing what’s best for the greater good? Liberty requires discipline. Freedom unbridled, without laws or responsibility, is anarchy.

Also it wasn’t very responsible for the Danish cartoons to be published but they were. Freedom is freedom whether we agree on what they say or not.

(Scroll down for updates.) Despite appeals from the Bush Administration as well as several current and former government officials — both Democrat and Republican — the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times decided to break a story today

A secret Bush administration program to track people suspected of bankrolling terrorism drew protest