Easy Reader Reporter Admits: We Are Going Bust

 Ryan McDonald of the Easy Reader News interviewed me for a story about the fate of the Republican Party in the South Bay section of Los Angeles County.

I recorded our interview:

Here's what he had to say about Easy Reader News:

"I used to cover Hermosa. With the pandemic, a lot of Easy Reader staff got laid off, so things have been pretty different. It' tough for everybody right now."

Indeed.

Ryan McDonald also shared toward the end of our interview that he thinks that the LA Times is a newspaper of high repute, and he also believes that the Southern Poverty Law Center is a noteworthy organization.

It's really disturbing to hear how cut off from reality so many of the journalists in our current press corps have become so biased, and so blinded to their bias.

In my interview with McDonald, I pressed him a number of times about the rancorous, unyielding bias of the media against President Donald Trump. I called out the fact that they routinely lied about him, claiming that he had said that Nazis and White Supremacists were good people, when he had never said that, and he repeatedly denied referring to them.

I guess I can give Ryan McDonald some credit, in that he did not mention anything about the hate group from Alabama in his Easy Reader story. 

Still, I must say that I was shocked and dismayed that McDonald thinks that the LA Times is a newspaper of good repute. He disputed the point that I made, that the newspaper is racist, even though the editorial board and the owner of the newspaper admitted that the LA Times had a racist past. They wrote two articles about it!

At any rate, in spite of the fact that the reporter called on some sordid elements in the South Bay to try to defame me, the article was all around pretty good.

I am also glad that I am able to expose that Easy Reader News is about to close down for good, since they have spent too much time pushing a left-wing agenda, especially considering the negative cartoons they print which attack President Donald Trump and conservatives.

Epic Self-Own: The LA Times Admits That They Are Racist

 Liberals are racist. There is no getting around this fact for them. They view everything as a matter of race, and they insist on judging people based on their color of their skin, not the content of their character. Of course, liberals and their progressive ilk don't have any character. They just have emotion and vehemence.

Now, the new owner of the Los Angeles Times has come clean and admitted that his newspaper is racist. Check out his open letter to this (very small) reading public.

I am not going to waste my time trying to sort through and comment on every aspect of this article. I am content to let the editorial and the open letter from the publisher speak for themselves.

The LA Times admits that they are racist!

The Times’reckoning on race and our commitment to meaningful change

By DR. PATRICK SOON-SHIONG

SEP. 27, 2020 3 AM PT

This year, with the pandemic and the resulting economic crisis, the systemic racism in our country has been laid bare. One need only look at who was vulnerable to and suffering from COVID-19 to understand how racial inequality disadvantages those who are discriminated against.

And then in May, as our physical environments remained limited and we were increasingly reliant on news media to stay connected to the world, we collectively witnessed — through a bystander’s cellphone video — the horrific killing of a Black man, George Floyd, in the custody of a white police officer. It was not an isolated event, but it was galvanizing, and it spoke to centuries of racism in America that started with the enslavement of Black people.

Since then, across America, we’ve engaged in conversations about race and discrimination that have been candid, direct and consequential. They are happening among friends and co-workers, through protests and political debates, at athletic events and in pop culture. And they are happening at the Los Angeles Times.

This news organization can succeed only to the degree it engages, examines and accurately reflects the city and the region. Much of its best work has succeeded because it has done that.

As the country grapples with the role of systemic racism, The Times has committed to examining its past. This project looks at our treatment of people of color — outside and inside the newsroom — throughout our nearly 139-year history.

More stories

But over its history, The Times has also mirrored, and in some cases propagated, the biases and prejudices of the world it covers, reflecting and shaping attitudes that have contributed to social and economic inequity. Today, we are beginning the process of acknowledging those biases of the past and taking positive action to affirm a commitment that our newsroom will not tolerate prejudice.

Since it began publication in the early 1880s, The Times has had blind spots. It has ignored large swaths of the city and its diverse population, or covered them in one-dimensional, sometimes racist ways. In part that is because the paper’s staff has never truly reflected the region. The paper employed no Black staff journalists until the mid-1960s. Latinos have never been represented on the staff in anything like their numbers in the community. The Metro staff didn’t have its first Asian American staff member until the late 1970s.

As the Los Angeles Times’ first nonwhite owners in its nearly 139-year history, my wife, Michele, and I are determined to increase diversity within the organization. We believe that The Times can better represent Los Angeles and California by providing more and better coverage of Black, Latino, Asian and other underrepresented communities in our English- and Spanish-language publications. We have committed to hiring more reporters and editors of color and to building an organizational culture that truly values representation and equity. We will strive to retain, mentor and promote journalists of color. And we will be transparent in this process.

These are issues deeply important to my family and me.

I met Michele when we were both teenagers in the Eastern Cape of South Africa, where my father had fled from China during World War II. I was a member of an anti-apartheid student union. Later, as a young, nonwhite doctor in a society predicated on racial prejudice, I received a salary that was 50% that of my peers at a hospital where my first white patient refused to let me touch him.

Michele vividly remembers being told there was no place for her in the entertainment industry, just as I remember being arrested by the police in South Africa for refusing to carry an identity card. We know well the pain of both explicit and unconscious racism, something you cannot fully understand unless you have experienced it yourself. For a person of color, the structural and interpersonal violence that is the legacy of colonialism, slavery and policies designed to disenfranchise human beings based on their race or ethnicity is unmistakable. It is part of everyday life.

Michele and I came to the United States in 1980 for the opportunities it promised and have made Los Angeles our home. We were attracted to Southern California, in part, because of its rich diversity, and we feel deeply rooted in this wonderful city where we have raised our children and made our lives. We have been immensely fortunate, and purchasing the Los Angeles Times in 2018 came from a desire to give back to a city that has given us so much.

Our guiding hope has been to rebuild The Times following years of disinvestment, strengthen the newsroom that plays a critical role in our democracy, and help make the paper a beacon of truth and inspiration. We also feel a deep personal responsibility and duty to fight racism and bias. The national reckoning on race and that within the Los Angeles Times are welcome developments that have already led to productive conversations, concrete plans and accelerated progress for us.

We are committed to change, both because it is just and because it is mission-critical for our business. Only a diverse newsroom can accurately tell this city’s stories. Only a newspaper that holds power to account and uncovers injustice can truly succeed.

The Times has committed to a close examination of its past, beginning with the project we are launching today. It starts with an overview by the editorial board of The Times’ history in covering and employing people of color and an acknowledgment of the paper’s failings. Over the following days, we will run stories by staff reporters and columnists examining in greater depth, and from a personal perspective, aspects of the paper’s coverage of nonwhite communities and treatment of journalists of color.

We eagerly embrace this self-examination because we believe we can move forward only by first understanding what came before. In South Africa, it was truth and reconciliation that led to meaningful change. By confronting the injustices of the past, we can meet this historic moment and make The Times an institution and publication that can serve you, our readers, and the community better.

We invite you along on our journey.

The Los Angeles Times editorial board official issued an apology for being racist:

Editorial: Anexamination of The Times’ failures on race, our apology and a path forward

Headline reads "Marauders from inner city prey on LA's suburbs" at the top of a 1981 Los Angeles Times front page

A story that reinforced harmful stereotypes about Black and Latino Angelenos appeared on the front page on July 12, 1981.(Los Angeles Times)

The headline was stripped across the top of the front page, “Marauders From Inner City Prey on L.A.’s Suburbs.” The story, published by The Times on July 12, 1981, described a “permanent underclass” in the city’s “ghettos and barrios,” fueling a crime wave that was spilling over from South Los Angeles into prosperous — and largely white — communities in Pasadena, Palos Verdes, Beverly Hills and elsewhere.

The article, the first of a two-part series, purported to be an ambitious look at a major social problem, and it cited a lack of education and jobs as underlying causes of inner-city distress. But it also reinforced pernicious stereotypes that Black and Latino Angelenos were thieves, rapists and killers. It sensationalized and pathologized the struggles of poor families and painted residents of South L.A. with a broad brush. It quoted police and prosecutors unskeptically and implied that more aggressive policing and harsher judicial sentencing were the only effective responses to crime.

For the record:

10:18 AM, Sep. 28, 2020An earlier version of this story identified Dean Takahashi as a Metro reporter in 1992. He was a business reporter.

The story lacked nuance and context, neglecting decades of government policies that had led to housing and school segregation and to the creation of ghettos and barrios, which were then provided with inferior public services. And it failed to give any real sense that the vast majority of the area’s residents were ordinary, law-abiding citizens, just trying to raise families and get by.

The series drew prompt and deserved criticism that highlighted an insidious problem that has marred the work of the Los Angeles Times for much of its history: While the paper has done groundbreaking and important work highlighting the issues faced by communities of color, it has also often displayed at best a blind spot, at worst an outright hostility, for the city’s nonwhite population, one both rooted and reflected in a shortage of Indigenous, Black, Latino, Asian and other people of color in its newsroom.

Our reckoning with racism

As the country grapples with the role of systemic racism, The Times has committed to examining its past. This project looks at our treatment of people of color — outside and inside the newsroom — throughout our nearly 139-year history.

More stories

Prompted by a pandemic, an economic crisis and a national debate over policing — all of which have spotlighted racial disparities in the United States — our nation now faces a long-delayed reckoning with systemic racism. We would be remiss, in the autumn of 2020, a season of grief and introspection, if we did not take part in that self-examination. This editorial is one part of that process.

A comprehensive and balanced history of Los Angeles journalism — a people’s history that tells the story of The Times from the perspective of its employees and its readers — has yet to be written. But a deep look at the paper’s pages over time tells part of that story.

Under Harrison Gray Otis, who controlled The Times from 1882 until his death in 1917, the newspaper stood for the raw exercise of industrialists’ and landowners’ power over Los Angeles.

For at least its first 80 years, the Los Angeles Times was an institution deeply rooted in white supremacy and committed to promoting the interests of the city’s industrialists and landowners. No one embodied this aggressive, conservative ideology more than Harrison Gray Otis, the walrus-mustachioed Civil War veteran who controlled The Times from 1882 until his death in 1917.

The modern notion that journalism’s core precepts include uncovering hard truths and exposing inequity would have been foreign to Otis and other press barons of the last Gilded Age. Far from a mission of “comforting the afflicted and afflicting the comfortable,” his newspaper stood for the raw exercise of power, and he used it to further a naked agenda of score settling, regional boosterism, economic aggrandizement and union busting.

Otis was a Lincoln Republican who had fought on the side of the Union and opposed slavery. But his Times was a newspaper aimed at the mostly Protestant white settlers who migrated to California from the Midwest and the Plains in the decades after it was seized from Mexico in 1848 and admitted to the Union in 1850.

Again and again, The Times sought to shape and dominate the region instead of merely chronicling it. Using a trade group known as the Merchants and Manufacturers’ Assn., Otis spearheaded a campaign to prevent and impede unionization. He weighed in on the side of San Pedro over Santa Monica in an epic 1890s battle over where to locate a federally funded deepwater port. His family meddled in the politics of Mexico, where they owned a huge ranch, in an attempt to preserve their land rights. He was part of a powerful syndicate that pushed for the acquisition of water rights from farmers in the Owens Valley in 1913 — a decision fictionalized in Roman Polanski’s 1974 film “Chinatown” — and the annexation of the San Fernando Valley in 1915.

And in all of his crusades, he enlisted the powerful voice of his newspaper.

During the early 20th century, as control passed from Otis to his son-in-law Harry Chandler and his heirs, The Times promoted the city’s explosive growth. But even as Dust Bowl migration, the World War II arms industry and a vast movement of Black Americans escaping Jim Crow segregation transformed the city, the newspaper remained nearly entirely white in its staff, its readership and its outlook.

A tragic example of why that was a problem was the newspaper’s support for wartime incarceration of Japanese Americans, one of the most egregious violations of civil liberties in our nation’s history. (The Times apologized in 2017 for that editorial position.)

Here’s another example: In 1943, sailors on leave from wartime service rampaged lawlessly in downtown Los Angeles, attacking young Mexican Americans fitted in so-called zoot suits — long coats and wide trousers pegged at the ankle. The Times largely ignored the context — the social and economic upheaval brought about by wartime mobilization and the racist trope of threatened white womanhood — and blamed the victims instead of their assailants. When First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt suggested that the rioting might have grown out of racial discrimination toward Mexican Americans, The Times vehemently denied that was possible, asserting in an editorial, “We like Mexicans and we think they like us.”

After the war ended, The Times became an uncritical mouthpiece for Washington as it covered the Eisenhower administration’s Operation Wetback, which used military-style tactics to deport Mexican migrants — some of them U.S. citizens — who had been invited north to perform agricultural labor during the war.

Headlines read "Zoot suiters learn lesson in fights with servicemen" and "Inquiry on Jap activities set"

Coverage of the so-called Zoot Suit Riots and a congressional investigation into Japanese Americans appear in the June 7, 1943, edition of the Los Angeles Times. The newspaper blamed the zoot suit-wearing Mexican American victims of attacks by servicemen and supported the wartime incarceration of Japanese Americans.(Los Angeles Times)

The most enlightened of the Chandlers was Otis, fourth and last of the patriarchs who controlled The Times for its first century. The Times’ standards and reputation improved under his tenure as publisher, from 1960 to 1980. He plowed what were then vast profits into the hiring of hundreds of journalists and reoriented the paper in a more politically neutral direction. Famously, Chandler authorized the publication, in 1961, of an investigation into the anti-communist John Birch Society, whose members included far-right white supremacists — and members of Chandler’s extended family (though he also presided over the paper’s 1964 presidential endorsement of Barry Goldwater, who strongly opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act).

By the standards of his time, Chandler was a moderate, if not always consistent. He endorsed most goals of the civil rights movement and in 1965, during the Watts uprising, served as an informal mediator between Black protesters and the Police Department. In 1969, The Times endorsed the historic mayoral candidacy of Councilman Tom Bradley, a grandson of slaves who in 1973 would go on to defeat Mayor Sam Yorty, the divisive white incumbent.

But even as The Times moved in a more progressive direction, its newsroom did not come close to representing the city’s demographics. The Times won a Pulitzer Prize for its coverage of the August 1965 civil unrest in Watts, yet the reporters and editors on the story were nearly all white. A 24-year-old Black advertising messenger, Robert Richardson, covered the disturbances, driving to the scene and phoning in his reports. Named a reporter trainee after the riots, he was given next to no support and left the paper the next year.

“The View From Watts,” an in-depth series The Times published in October 1965, chronicled pent-up frustrations in the Black community, and an accompanying editorial recommended summer jobs, improved police-community relations, stronger school nutrition programs and similar reforms. But the project too often took a patronizing view of Black Angelenos, most egregiously in a piece called “Police Brutality: State of Mind?” that used selective examples and unexamined quotes from police officers to heavily imply that police brutality was a thing of the past.

The Kerner Commission, impaneled to study the root causes of 1967 uprisings in Detroit, Newark, N.J., and other cities, was prophetic in calling for the hiring of Black journalists. “The scarcity of Negroes in responsible news jobs intensifies the difficulties of communicating the reality of the contemporary American city to white newspaper and television audiences,” the panel found. That was certainly true at The Times.

It was not just that The Times saw fit to hire white men almost exclusively for its newsroom; the stories it told were largely for and about white people, which meant Angelenos weren’t getting an accurate account of their city, region and state at a time of rapid change.

Typical of the paper’s attitude was a 1978 interview in which Otis Chandler airily dismissed Black and Latino readers: “It’s not their kind of newspaper. It’s too big, it’s too stuffy. If you will, it’s too complicated.”

Chandler later stepped back from that, saying the paper was looking for readers in the “broad middle class” and “upper classes” regardless of race or ethnicity. “We are not a paper that’s sought after in the lower-class areas,” he said.

Around that time, in 1979, The Times was slow to cover the shooting of Eula Love, a 39-year-old Black homemaker who was shot to death by Los Angeles police officers in her South L.A. frontyard in a dispute over an unpaid gas bill. L.A.’s afternoon daily, the Herald Examiner, played the story big, and Black residents were outraged at what they saw as an egregious example of police abuse. After being hammered by other media outlets for underplaying the story, including in an Esquire article headlined “Mr. Otis Regrets,” The Times ran a long story by media writer David Shaw about how it had “muffed” the story, and top editors began rethinking how the paper covered the LAPD.

Eula Love

Eula Love was shot and killed Jan. 3, 1979, by Los Angeles police officers in her frontyard. The Times’ coverage of the killing was lacking.

As has often been the case in history, progress came from the bottom up. After the “marauders” series, Black reporters met with Editor William F. Thomas to register their objections. And in February 1982, a pioneering group of Latino journalists, gathering for pizza and beer in Downey, began conceiving of a staff-led effort to tell a rich and deep narrative of their growing community. “We keep seeing the same damn stories in the paper: about crime, gangs, illegal immigration,” Frank O. Sotomayor, one of the editors on the series, recalls his co-editor, George Ramos, saying. “We want to tell our stories.”

The result was a landmark series, published in 1983, about Latinos and how they were reshaping Southern California. Latino journalists initiated and carried out the project, and presented the Latino community in all its complexity, featuring gang members and wealthy entrepreneurs, priests, police officers, university students and politicians. It examined issues that impeded Latino progress and celebrated improvements. The project was recognized with the 1984 Pulitzer Prize for public service, the highest honor in American journalism. The same year, The Times’ parent company, Times-Mirror, established a Minority Editorial Training Program, or MetPro, which continues to this day.

Yet The Times remained a lonely place for journalists of color. In December 1990, Shaw, The Times’ media critic, wrote a series lamenting the dearth of diversity in journalism. He wrote of his own newspaper: “The Times is widely regarded — particularly by blacks, inside the paper and out — as having one of the poorest records for minority advancement of any major paper in the country.”

The police beating of Rodney G. King in 1991, and the unrest that followed the subsequent acquittal of the four LAPD officers charged with assaulting him, exposed once again why that mattered. With 63 people dead, the 1992 uprising was far deadlier than the earlier Watts riots, in which 34 people died.

The Times was awarded a Pulitzer Prize for its coverage of the disturbances, just as it was after Watts. But in later years academics argued that The Times overemphasized the role of Black Angelenos in the riots (half of those arrested by the LAPD were Latino) and sensationalized Black-Korean conflict (a Korean-born shopkeeper, Soon Ja Du, had killed a Black teenager, Latasha Harlins, the previous year inside her family’s grocery store).

Within The Times, newsroom tensions burst into the open. “When the riot spread and it became apparent that a number of white reporters could not gain access to the scene, minority reporters from the suburbs were shipped into the danger zone,” Dean Takahashi, then a young business reporter and one of few Asian Americans on staff, wrote in a May 1992 article for Editor & Publisher that drew national attention. “A black colleague of mine mockingly called it the ‘Los Angeles Times busing program.’”

As it had a decade earlier, The Times made some commitments to improvements. It hired several journalists of color and established a zoned section known as City Times to cover neighborhoods of South Los Angeles and East Los Angeles that had long been neglected — “the hole in the doughnut,” as editors said at the time. The effort lasted for only three years, folding in 1995.

But even as the editorial staff pushed for broader and better coverage of the city’s diverse communities, the newspaper was being torn by political divisions within the extended Chandler family that still owned the paper, some of whom felt The Times had leaned too far leftward. In 1994, the top business executive, Publisher Richard T. Schlosberg III, directed the editorial board to endorse Gov. Pete Wilson, a Republican, in his bid for reelection.

Wilson was the chief proponent of Proposition 187, an initiative on the same ballot that would decide his reelection. The measure sought to bar undocumented immigrants from access to state-funded healthcare and education. Staff members, especially Latinos, were disgusted. “Under normal circumstances, I would quietly accept that decision and move on. This time I cannot,” Deputy Editorial Page Editor Frank del Olmo wrote in a dissent that ran in the paper. “Because this is not just another political campaign. And the Wilson endorsement is not — as a senior colleague whom I respect tried to convince me — just another endorsement.”

He continued: “For me, a Mexican American born and reared in California and a journalist here for more than 20 years, this campaign is unprecedented in the harm it does — permanent damage, I fear — to an ethnic community I care deeply about and a state I love.”

Frank del Olmo gestures while sitting at his desk in 1991

Frank del Olmo was the first Latino editor on the masthead of the Los Angeles Times. The newspaper’s 1994 endorsement of Gov. Pete Wilson, who was pushing Proposition 187, drew his vehement dissent in the pages of The Times.(Los Angeles Times)

The summer after voters adopted Proposition 187 (it was later struck down by the courts), Janet Clayton was named editorial page editor, a Black woman and the first person of color to occupy that role. During her nine-year tenure, the opinion pages of The Times evolved to reflect an optimistic, progressive and inclusive political vision. The section won two Pulitzer Prizes, one in 2002 for a series on mentally ill people living on the streets, and the other in 2004 for a series on entrenched problems in California state government.

Halfway through Clayton’s tenure, The Times and its sister papers were sold to the Chicago-based Tribune Co. The new owners brought in two nationally esteemed journalists — John S. Carroll, who had overseen newspapers in Baltimore and Lexington, Ky., as editor, and Dean Baquet, the national editor at the New York Times, as managing editor.

With Baquet overseeing the day-to-day operations of the newsroom, Clayton overseeing the opinion pages (before moving to the Metro section) and art director Joseph Hutchinson serving as deputy managing editor for design, the newspaper for a time had three Black editors on its masthead. Del Olmo was the first Latino on the masthead, and the Mexican-born writer Andrés Martinez was later the second, as editorial page editor.

That diversity — a high point — proved short-lived. Del Olmo, 55, died of cardiac arrest after collapsing in his office at The Times in 2004; Baquet, who succeeded Carroll as top editor, was fired in 2006 after refusing to make more cuts; Clayton, Hutchinson and Martinez all left in 2007.

Since Baquet’s departure, The Times has seen a flurry of top editors and business executives come and go. One of them — Davan Maharaj, who joined The Times in 1989 as an intern and oversaw the newsroom from 2011 to 2017 — was of Indian ancestry and an immigrant from Trinidad.

Maharaj, the first Asian American to lead The Times, presided over a depleted newsroom that had spent four years in federal bankruptcy protection, ending in 2012. Newsroom diversity improved, but the staff was shaken by multiple rounds of buyouts. Nonetheless, it continued to do outstanding work, including a Pulitzer-winning expose of corruption in the city of Bell, a story co-written and uncovered by a Guatemalan-born journalist, Ruben Vives.

By the time The Times was sold in 2018, to the physician and pharmaceutical inventor Patrick Soon-Shiong, the paper was down to about 400 journalists, less than half of the 940 when Baquet left.

Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong smiles as he speaks into a microphone in the Los Angeles Times newsroom

Los Angeles Times owner Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong, left, addresses staffers in 2018 shortly after his purchase of the paper. (Mel Melcon / Los Angeles Times)

Where does The Times go from here?

An organization should not be defined by its failures, but it must acknowledge them if it is to hope for a better future.

The brutal death of a Black man, George Floyd, on May 25 while in the custody of police in Minneapolis shocked the world. It also prompted news organizations like The Times to reflect on how they cover, frame and promote stories at a time when the 24/7 news cycle moves faster than ever. Amid nationwide demonstrations over racial injustice, members of the Los Angeles Times Guild established caucuses for Black and Latino employees. The caucuses have called for improvements in coverage, hiring and career development, a public apology for The Times’ poor record on race, and equal pay. They have insisted, rightly, on reframing and recentering our coverage of communities of color.

The Times in 2020 has new owners, new leaders, a new labor union representing its journalists and a new headquarters in El Segundo. But the shadows of the past loom over our institution.

Newspapers are described as a first rough draft of history. But in truth, the first rough draft written by this newspaper — and those across the country — has been woefully incomplete.

On behalf of this institution, we apologize for The Times’ history of racism. 

BINGO! They admit it! The LA Times is racist!

We owe it to our readers to do better, and we vow to do so. A region as diverse and complex and fascinating as Southern California deserves a newspaper that reflects its communities. Today, 38% of the journalists on our staff are people of color. We know that is not nearly good enough, in a county that is 48% Latino and in a state where Latinos are the largest ethnic group. We know that this acknowledgment must be accompanied by a real commitment to change, a humility of spirit and an openness of mind and heart.

The Times will redouble and refocus its efforts to become an inclusive and inspiring voice of California — a sentinel that employs investigative and accountability reporting to help protect our fragile democracy and chronicles the stories of the Golden State, including stories that historically were neglected by the mainstream press. Being careful stewards of this new company, privately owned but operated for the benefit of the public, is our first obligation. But that stewardship will also require bold and decisive change. If we are to survive as a business, it will be by tapping into a digital, multicultural, multigenerational audience in a way The Times has never fully done.

We make this pledge in recognition of the many journalists who battled over the decades to make The Times a more inclusive workplace and a newspaper that reflected the real Los Angeles in its pages. As we reorient this institution firmly and fully around the multiethnic, interfaith and dazzlingly complex tapestry that is Southern California, we honor their contributions.

The Wrap offered their own commentary on this self-own:

LA TimesApologizes for ‘History of Racism,’ Vows Diversity in Coverage and Staff

Los Angeles Times owner Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong vowed to increase diversity in the newspaper’s coverage and staff in a letter published Sunday along with a series of sweeping, introspective reports into the Times’s long history of racism.

“The Times has also mirrored, and in some cases propagated, the biases and prejudices of the world it covers, reflecting and shaping attitudes that have contributed to social and economic inequity,” Soon-Shiong wrote. “Today, we are beginning the process of acknowledging those biases of the past and taking positive action to affirm a commitment that our newsroom will not tolerate prejudice.”

The articles examine the LA Times’ history dating back to its creation in the 1880s and its repeated failure to cover critical issues affecting millions of nonwhite Angelenos. Those issues include racist abuse from law enforcement, redlining practices that segregated Black and Latino residents into environmentally and economically poor neighborhoods, and willful bias on behalf of wealthy interests dating back to the paper’s first major publisher, Harrison Gray Otis.

 Again and again, The Times sought to shape and dominate the region instead of merely chronicling it,” the Times Editorial Board wrote.

The criticisms have continued to today, as reporters of color at the Times have accused executive editor Norman Pearlstine of failing to diversify the Times’ newsroom as well as failing to modernize the paper to meet digital subscription benchmarks. Over the summer, Black and Latino caucuses within the Times have published public statements criticizing the paper’s leadership, noting that its editors remain predominantly white and do not reflect the diversity of Southern California.

“This very much feels like a sink-or-swim moment for the paper. And when the people who are supposed to be guiding the ship, so to speak, don’t seem to be aware of what’s going on — if they’re even around — it’s alarming. It’s very, very alarming,” one reporter told TheWrap in August.

In his letter, Soon-Shiong notes that he and his wife are the first nonwhite owners of the Times, and as such “feel a deep personal responsibility and duty to fight racism and bias.” Along with today’s editorials and introspective reports, Soon-Shiong says that more articles from the Times’ reporters of color will be published in the coming days examining the paper’s coverage of nonwhite communities.

“The national reckoning on race and that within the Los Angeles Times are welcome developments that have already led to productive conversations, concrete plans and accelerated progress for us,” he wrote. “We are committed to change, both because it is just and because it is mission-critical for our business. Only a diverse newsroom can accurately tell this city’s stories. Only a newspaper that holds power to account and uncovers injustice can truly succeed.”

The Disgraceful Media Display at the John McCain Funeral (Photos and Commentary)

On Saturday, September 1, I captured the following screen shots of CNN covering the funeral of US Senator John McCain:

The daughter, Meghan McCain, was attacking President Trump in her eulogy, and CNN went out of its way to promote that resolute hatred of the President.

Really.

Here's Jan Brewer, the previous governor of Arizona, and a fervent Trump supporter.

Check out the caption below for this screenshot:

"Former presidents honor McCain with words aimed at Trump."

How can anyone honor someone while attacking another person? They end up giving all the attention to the person attacked, not to the person meant to be honored.

What a sham.

Then check out the headline on the Sunday Edition of the Los Angeles Times the next day"

I laughed when I saw this. Did anyone really believe that that eulogies offered by former Presidents and the daughter transcended partisanship? The political class pushing Big Business and Big Wars at the Little Guy's expense went after a populist President who has championed working people since long before he ran for public office.

They relentlessly harassed President Trump. That's the epitome of partisan.

The tributes were over-long for John McCain. Yes, he ran for President twice. Yes, he was a war hero, because he got captured and refused to be released before other POWs.

But he was also a globalist traitor who scuttled President Trump's and Americans' agenda to end Obamacare, secure our borders, and put Americans First.

RIP Red Elephants

Reminder: The Left-Wing Los Angeles Times Opposes AB 2943

Rarely do I expect the Los Angeles Times to echo concerns which I have shared about legislation, especially bills which touch on very sensitive cultural issues.

Yet in May 2018, the Los Angeles Times editorial board declared their fervent opposition to AB 2943, pointing out that the language of the bill is too broad, attacks the First Amendment rights of American citizens.

Opponents of AB 2943 should submit this editorial to every elected official whom they can connect with and tell them to oppose this ban on reparative therapy, the First Amendment, and the rights of individuals to seek the best care for their life and well-being.

Target 'gay conversion therapy,' not religion

In 2012 California enacted a law that bars licensed mental health providers from engaging in therapy designed to change the sexual orientation of patients under the age of 18. Now the state Senate is considering a sequel of sorts. But this new legislation is broader in its application — so broad that some critics are claiming that it could be used to interfere with the sale of religious books, even the Bible.

Yes, and those concerns are true.

Such fears may be farfetched. But AB 2943, which was passed by the Assembly last month, contains ambiguities that need to be cleared up if the legislation is to become law.

Like the 2012 statute, AB 2943 is inspired by research showing that so-called conversion therapy is not only ineffective but harmful. There is also a consensus among mental health experts that such therapy perpetuates the discredited idea that being gay is a mental disorder. Unlike the earlier law, however, this legislation targets "sexual orientation change efforts" aimed at adults as well as minors.

The notion of attacking adults' liberties is very bad. Why does the state legislature insist on treating adults like children?

Some would argue that adults should be allowed to avail themselves of therapies, however discredited, if they are offered by licensed psychologists and other professionals. But if the Legislature has the legal authority to forbid therapists from engaging in conversion therapy with minors, it probably can prohibit them from treating adults as well.

That is a bad argument. The ban on reparative therapy for minors should be repealed, too.

Many religious groups teach that sex is permissible only within heterosexual marriage. The 1st Amendment protects their right to counsel adherents accordingly.

The problem is that AB 2943 isn't a regulation of licensed healthcare professionals. Rather, and oddly, it's an amendment to a state law, the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, dealing with fraudulent trade in goods and services. It would expand the definition of "unfair or deceptive acts or practices" for which consumers could sue to include "advertising, offering to engage in or engaging in sexual orientation change efforts with an individual." And it would cover anyone who engaged in that practice.

Would that include churches or other religious groups that sold, advertised or even recommended books that propagated the idea that believers can use prayer to overcome "same-sex attraction"? That's what several conservative organizations and commentators are arguing. They have the Constitution on their side. The 1st Amendment clearly protects their right to preach, and encourage adherents to follow, religious doctrine on sexual morality.

Those arguments are justified and disturbing.

Supporters of the bill scoff at this critique. A fact sheet provided by Assemblyman Evan Low (D-Silicon Valley), the sponsor of AB 2943, asserts that the bill "does not apply to the sale of books or any other kind of goods" and that the Bible "would absolutely not be banned." Yet the bill itself makes no such declaration. And the existing Consumer Legal Remedies Act clearly applies to the sale of goods such as books, videos and other educational materials — including those sold by churches and other religious groups.

The latest amendment has removed the ban on "goods", but services including reading materials, do they not?

Another complaint by critics is that, while the bill permits therapies that "do not seek to change sexual orientation," it defines "sexual orientation change efforts" to include attempts to alter not only romantic attractions but also "behaviors or gender expressions." Under this broad definition, wrote David French in the National Review, "if ... a sexually active gay man or woman sought counseling not to change their orientation but rather to become celibate, then the services and goods provided in that effort would violate this statute."

The law is a blunt instrument to implement minute, discreet changes.

Many Californians obviously reject the idea that gays and lesbians shouldn't engage in sexual activity. But many religious groups (including the Roman Catholic Church) teach that sex is permissible only within heterosexual marriage. The 1st Amendment protects their right to counsel adherents to live by those teachings.

Yes, and the laws of nature and nature's God affirm these timeless truths, whether people in God or do not believe in God.

Granted, the 2012 law banning conversion therapy for minors by licensed professionals also defined "sexual orientation change efforts" to include efforts to change "behaviors or gender expressions." But that law regulated only the conduct of state-licensed professionals. Now, the state would be going further, including trying to regulate nonprofessionals, possibly including those engaged in religious speech. In upholding the 2012 law against a 1st Amendment challenge, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals emphasized that the statute didn't prevent mental health providers from referring minors to unlicensed counselors "such as religious leaders."

Finally, it's true that AB 2943 covers only sexual orientation change efforts that result in the "sale or lease of goods or services" and thus wouldn't affect a lot of religious communications in which no money changes hands. But what if a minister urged someone he or she was counseling to buy a book or enroll in a religious seminar that charged a registration fee? Treating that activity as consumer fraud would raise serious constitutional questions.

YUP! Bingo!

It's possible that the critics of this bill are being alarmist, but the language of the legislation is ambiguous enough to justify at least some of their concerns. The Senate can allay them by amending the bill to make it clear that it can't be used against books or religious preaching or counseling about sexuality.

When the Los Angeles Times disagrees with your legislation, it's time to go home.

Please contact Assemblyman Evan Low's office and urge him to reject this bill, withdraw it from consideration.

Low, Evan

District 28            Democrat            Contact Assembly Member Evan Low

Capitol Office, Room 4126

P.O. Box 942849, Sacramento, CA 94249-0028; (916) 319-2028

District Office

20111 Stevens Creek Blvd, Suite 220, Cupertino, CA 95014; (408) 446-2810

Assemblymember.low@assembly.ca.gov

Use these links to contact other state assemblymembers and urge them to reject this legislation, too.

1.      Here's your Call to Action posted:

http://www.massresistance.org/docs/gen3/18c/MR-CA-Bill-2943/assembly-call-to-action.html

 

2.      Here's the list of Assembly members posted:

http://www.massresistance.org/docs/gen3/18c/MR-CA-Bill-2943/assembly-members.html

California's Partisan Democrats Now Regret SB 54

The Los Angeles Times, while it still prints and operates with any regularity, prints letters from the left and from Democrats.

Rarely have I ever seen them publish letters from conservatives, now that the paper has chosen to double down on its left-wing bias, even as though they lose readership and market share.

The latest set of letters focused on the growing backlash to California's sanctuary state law, SB 54.

Democrats are starting to realize that they overplayed their hand, and their unconstitutional overreach is getting push-back:

A pro-Trump backlash awaits Democrats who come down too hard on cities opposed to California's 'sanctuary' law

To the editor: California has consistently stated it would not help federal authorities enforce U.S. immigration law. At the same time, California has insisted that cities follow state laws.

A case in point is the passionate debate on the state's so-called sanctuary law limiting the cooperation by local law enforcement with federal immigration authorities. As a lifelong Democrat, this greatly concerns me.

This type of hypocrisy only stiffens support for President Trump and reduces Democrats' chances of becoming a majority in Congress. I support President Obama's actions to protect the undocumented immigrants who were brought to this country as children, but I also believe cities should be left alone to decide what is best for their residents.

Sam Burgess, South Pasadena

I also believe that states should abide by federal law, specifically on immigration which is outlined in the Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution.

----------------------

To the editor: Reading what was said by the anti-sanctuary protesters in Santa Clarita made my blood boil.

SB 54, California's sanctuary law, merely provides a safe space for immigrants. It seeks to prevent families from being torn apart, and most importantly, it in no way stops U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement from doing its job. Yes, the law limits cooperation with federal authorities, but ICE can still arrest or detain people.

No. SB 54 protects illegal alien criminals.

So, what's the argument by people who oppose SB 54 other than they just don't want immigrants here?

Immigrants oppose SB 54. Illegal aliens oppose SB 54!

Melissa Gonzalez, San Jose

The Self-Immolation of the Los Angeles Times

The Washington Post has struggled with its growing struggle of integrity and staffing issues. They were fishing around for the worst story they could find to impugn the character of Judge Roy Moore in his special election bid for the US Senate.

Even though the hollow, hateful smears brought down his bid, the Washington Post has lost what little integrity they claimed to carry from henceforth.

Another liberal rag, the Los Angeles Times, published a hit piece against me, but in spite of their best efforts, more people came out in support for me and what I stand for. Those liberals who tried to use the story against me, would have attacked me with or without the LA Times article.

Now the Los Angeles Times is the featured story as the paper's circulation crumbles and the editorial staff gets purged.

‘Anything could happen’: Amid newsroom clashes, Los Angeles Times becomes its own story
By Paul Farhi January 26 at 6:09 PM 

The news has been frenetic lately for reporters at the Los Angeles Times. Massive wildfires swept a region just getting over a historic drought, followed by deadly mudslides, and then the explosive Turpin family child-abuse saga — a chain of events that tested the chops of the prizewinning newsroom.

They are losing staff every day. They can't keep up with operating costs, and more readers are fed up with fake news

But some of the biggest news at the Times has been coming from within its downtown headquarters. The paper — one of the largest and most important news organizations in America — has been beset by turmoil the past two weeks, prompting questions about its future.

The Tribune Company has sold off shares and interests in buildings and other real estate. They have been laying off workers, and they have cycled through one editor after another.

After decades of successful resistance by management and years of demoralizing cutbacks, the Times’s journalists voted overwhelmingly last week to unionize. Before bargaining can begin, however, reporters are concerned about a plan by the Times’s management to reorganize the way the paper produces news.

The push to unionize is a last-ditch attempt for those overpaid liberal propagandists to hold onto their jobs. What they do not realize, however, is that unionization does not guarantee a job. They are not the owners of all the resources and staffing. The company owners get to decide what they do with their printing presses, digital machines, etc.

They can choose to shut down the paper altogether, sell off all their materiel, and put all the journalists on the street.

Under a new “pyramid” structure proposed this month, a network of nonstaff contributors would produce the bulk of the information the Times publishes online. Reporters say the paper has quietly begun hiring a cadre of editors to supervise the reorganization, which would effectively create a new company within the company.

Yes, people who will not act like a bunch of entitled social justice warriors who think that the world owes them ... everything. These hacks are predominantly straight out of college, where they have been taught to see the world through a Marxist conflict-theory lens.

They don't report the news as much as promote a narrative.

The man who introduced the plan — blindsiding the newsroom when he presented it to an investor conference in New York — was publisher Ross Levinsohn, the fifth person to hold that title in the past five years. Last week, Levinsohn was suspended by the paper’s owner, Chicago-based Tronc, after NPR revealed a series of sexual harassment allegations against him in previous jobs. The company said it is investigating.

Ouch! More #MeToo

The state of play at the Times, as well as the existential dread swirling around it, was neatly summarized in a tweet this week by Matt Pearce, a Times national reporter and an organizer of the union effort: “Basically, anything could happen at this point at the L.A. Times and people in the newsroom could only be half surprised by it. We’re hiring [editors] that aren’t being announced to the newsroom, our publisher wants to turn us into a pyramid, and by the way, he’s under investigation.”

In fact, more shoes are dropping.

On Thursday, reporters protested after top editor Lewis D’Vorkin suspended Kimi Yoshino, the Times’s financial editor. His reason was unclear — neither party would comment — but Times reporters say D’Vorkin suspected that Yoshino had been a source for other media reports about the Times, including an unflattering profile of D’Vorkin in the Columbia Journalism Review, which dubbed him “LA journalism’s ‘Prince of Darkness.’ ”

Now the reporters are ratting out their editors. So much distrust, but the reporters can thank themselves for creating this hostile environment. Unions create conflict rather than resolve conflict. The pit workers against workers, and workers against management, and objective journalism is completely lost in the process.

“We were very upset to learn yesterday that Kimi was abruptly asked to take a leave of absence and not even permitted to return to her office to collect her belongings and turn off her laptop,” said a letter signed by Times business journalists and promptly disseminated online. “This treatment of Kimi is a serious cause for concern.”

Aww. Poor babies!

Did they forget that the newsroom belongs to the owners, not the workers? I wonder also how much money the reporters are losing because they have to pay union dues to a union which has no incentive to work for the workers.

A spokeswoman for Tronc said it could not comment on employee matters.

D’Vorkin, who took over as Times editor in November, is a controversial figure in media circles. At Forbes, he undertook some unorthodox steps to arrest the magazine’s declining fortunes — including setting up a network of outside contributors to write stories for Forbes.com, some unpaid and some compensated on the basis of how many readers their stories attracted. He also permitted ads that blurred the lines between promotional content and news stories.

OK ...

In other words, D'Vorkin recognized the shifting media market and responded accordingly. Unions will never learn.

As the Times newsroom organizing committee characterized it in a letter to Tronc’s board on Tuesday, D’Vorkin “devalued Forbes’ journalism by sullying it with unpaid contributor content, pay-for-clicks schemes and troubling presentations of advertorial.”

Such is the fate of journalism. Everyone of us can tell stories, now, that no one can silence. The corporate leaders along the coasts cannot stop the news from coming forward anymore. Times are changing, and liberal corporate media cannot adjust anymore.

Only days into his new job at the Times, D’Vorkin drew the enmity of many in his newsroom by his response to complaints lodged by the Disney Co. over a Times series that detailed Disney’s influence over city officials in Anaheim, home of Disneyland. In the face of Disney executives’ protests, D’Vorkin ordered his journalists not to promote the Times’s own stories on social media. The entertainment giant is a key advertiser as well as a news source for the Times.

Wow! Media giants have turned into media whores! But this is not really news. The Los Angeles Times has been covering for liberals and Democratic politicians for decades. They are just getting really sloppy and brazen about it.

He also declined to reveal details of his meeting with Disney executives about the issue or to publish more than a few paragraphs about the paper’s discussions with the company, which had drawn national attention. D’Vorkin declined to comment for this article, referring a reporter to Tronc’s corporate spokesman.

Newspaper journalists are turning into spokesmen trying to sell a product. Nothing more.

The non-response appears to go to the heart of one of the central complaints by people at the paper: that a company engaged in communications doesn’t communicate very well with its own employees.

Why should they? The paper has not communicated the truth with the public for decades.

“It’s frustrating to hear about plans that we weren’t consulted about,” Anthony Pesce, a Times data journalist, told The Washington Post. “This paper is comprised of smart and engaged journalists who want nothing more than to see [the paper] succeed.”

Smart? Not really, considering that one of their reporters openly advertisers her connection with rabid anti-Semite Helen Thomas:

Amid the tumult, the Times has produced some of the best journalism in its 136-year history. In addition to its penetrating series about Disney, it broke a huge scandal in July involving a former dean at the University of Southern California’s medical school. It has been a leader in revealing sexual harassment allegations against leading Hollywood figures, such as directors James Toback and Brett Ratner. And in 2016, it won the Pulitzer Prize for breaking news for its coverage of the mass shooting in San Bernardino, its 44th Pulitzer.

But even those triumphs have come at a price. In August, Tronc fired the paper’s four top editors following an investigation triggered by staff complaints about the handling of major stories, including those about the USC dean.

WOW!

Tronc (the unusual new name is shorthand for Tribune Online Content) is an offshoot of the long-troubled Tribune Co., which emerged from bankruptcy protection in 2012. Tronc owns what had been Tribune Co.’s newspaper assets, including the Times, Baltimore Sun, Chicago Tribune and New York Daily News.

And these newspapers are practically giving away their online content, offering 10 weeks of unlimited access on websites for $1.

And still it seems that most readers are not biting.

Like almost every newspaper in the United States, the Times and its parent company has been buffeted for years by a precipitous decline in advertising and the flight of subscribers. During the 1990s, the Times had more than 1,000 journalists. It now employs about 400. Still, the events of recent days seem to have left both the newsroom and its readers a bit dazed and unsure of what’s coming next.

Bankruptcy. Layoffs. Oblivion.

One Times reader conveyed the bafflement in a tweet on Friday: “I subscribe to LAT b/c I think it’s impt to support my local paper, & their journalists do great work. But what’s going on there is awful. Is it helpful or counterproductive for me to cancel my subscription?”

Helpful.

Final Reflection

I am glad to see that Los Angeles Times go up in flames, and to see the conflagration break out within its own ranks. Elected officials, conservatives, Christians, grassroots activists concerned about their communities have had to contend with the liberal Fake News media for decades. There was so little that individuals could do at the time, since newspapers were the biggest megaphones in the public sphere and they dictated what people knew and did not know.

We lost Vietnam in large part because Walter Cronkite declared that the US forced has lost Vietnam. In fact, the military expeditions were becoming successful, and it is all wrong. The media had inordinate power and little accountability. They printed a false story, and the devastating consequences lasted for months if not years. Retractions were never adequate, and in many cases, media giants were printing lies or unsubstantiated reports.

Not good.

Now the corrupt, liberal media is getting the epic comeuppance! Boy, do they deserve it,