Report: Half of staff may quit LA Times if right-wing Koch brothers buy paper

posted at 4:01 pm on April 30, 2013 by Allahpundit

Call their bluff. Wherever you stand politically, we can all agree on that, right? If you’re a liberal, you want to see the fair, balanced, impartial LA Times newsroom rise as one and walk out in protest of having to work for libertarian oligarKKKs. If you’re a conservative, you want them gone for different reasons, partly as a smoking gun of bias and partly because it’ll clear the decks to hire more neutral reporters. And if they don’t walk out, that’s okay — their cheap bravado will have been exposed in all its cheapness.

Call their bluff. Break the left’s media monopoly. Then rename the paper the “Los Angeles Kochtopus,” just to spite them.

At a Los Angeles Times in-house awards ceremony a week ago, columnist Steve Lopez addressed the elephant in the room…

Facing the elephant trunk-on, “Raise your hand if you would quit if the paper was bought by the Koch brothers.” About half the staff raised their hands.

Perhaps one brave Times reporter would go public with a story killed by the new owners. She would lose her job, and it would be written about in The New York Times. And, it would pressure the LA Times owners to be more objective. But many of the people working at the Times support a family or are still developing their careers and can’t afford to lose their jobs — especially in a town with few job opportunities for newspaper journalists.

If half the staff quit under Koch ownership, that would leave half as many people likely to stand up to the owners — not to mention a huge loss of talented journalists who have built a wealth of LA knowledge and relationships over years of experience.

Half may be an underestimate. According to lefty Harold Meyerson, “A recent informal poll that one L.A. Times writer conducted of his colleagues showed that almost all planned to exit if the Kochs took control (and that included sportswriters and arts writers).” Cheap bravado among like-minded liberals or a bona fide threat? There’s only one way to know for sure.

After Meyerson’s piece came out last week, I tweeted it as evidence that the great conservative dream of buying up big-name liberal media outlets and making them more objective had a fatal flaw, namely that the reporters themselves would never tolerate it. Some will walk, others will stay on and defy warnings from the top not to tilt left and then dare ownership to fire them, knowing that martyrdom from the rest of the media awaits. Ace countered that Fox News proves that’s not true: Surely there are plenty of liberals working there, however grudgingly, in the name of collecting a paycheck in a highly competitive industry. They’ll put money over ideology if push comes to shove. Maybe, but Fox isn’t an exact analogue. Fox started from scratch as a conservative network; the Kochs buying the Times would be an invasion of liberal territory, a takeover of a once-eminent serious newspaper. It would threaten the left in a way that building a conservative media outlet from the ground up wouldn’t. Choosing to work for it would, at least at first, be seen by some leftist media types as tantamount to crossing a picket line. That’s a price worth paying in the long run, and even in the short run to see the bias exposed so nakedly, but if you think the Kochs are going to swoop in and turn the Times neutral or even conservative-leaning overnight, you’re kidding yourself.

John Ziegler thinks it’s mostly cheap bravado:

Right, but donations aren’t ownership. A big donor wields influence but not direct power to fire, hire, or dictate editorial policy, and his name doesn’t affect perceptions of the company’s brand the way it would if he owned it lock, stock, and barrel. If you’re a liberal working for NPR, you can shrug off the Kochs’ donations on grounds that NPR itself remains left-leaning and independent. If they want to give you money to do your work under those circumstances, hey, it’s their dime. If you’re a liberal working for the Koch-owned Times, though, then suddenly you’re a tentacle of the Kochtopus. And if you stay on on for the paycheck even after other reporters quit in protest, you’re a sellout according to your bien-pensant friends. Different dynamic. Doesn’t mean most won’t, in fact, sell out — a reporter’s got to eat — but as I say, different dynamic.

Exit question for media pros: How often are would-be purchasers pressured into issuing statements like the following? I’m asking earnestly. Maybe it’s standard practice and I just don’t know it:

“As an entrepreneurial company with 60,000 employees around the world, we are constantly exploring profitable opportunities in many industries and sectors. So, it is natural that our name would come up in connection with this rumor,” Melissa Cohlmia, a spokeswoman for Koch Companies Public Sector, said in a statement last month.

“We respect the independence of the journalistic institutions referenced in the news stories,” Ms. Cohlmia continued. “But it is our longstanding policy not to comment on deals or rumors of deals we may or may not be exploring.”

Do liberal media moguls typically feel obliged to reassure future employees that they won’t lean on them to push a certain line, even when they’re just one in a field of prospective buyers? I can’t remember a case of a newsroom fretting that a corporate suitor might wreak havoc by pushing them too far to the left, but I’m willing to stand corrected.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

Sounds like a plan. The paper will only improve…

dogsoldier on April 30, 2013 at 7:09 PM

If you want an objective paper, fine. That’s totally fine.

I just don’t see how having the Koch brothers accomplishes that.

Now you’re just biased in the opposite direction, which might be fun for you, but drop the whole white knight shit.

triple on April 30, 2013 at 7:05 PM

Well according to ResistWeMuch, I don’t see that they are rabid ‘right wing’ people.
So why don’t you enlighten us how they are so right wing?
Give me some real examples.

Badger40 on April 30, 2013 at 7:11 PM

The key will be hiring fair minded editors..

Bring them another boilerplate left wing conservative hit pice and get sent back to actually interview BOTH sides, in equal numbers with the same amount of type to their positions.. and no “dog whistle” liberal hate buzzwords, like right wing extremist.. ultra conservative,… and they HAVE to use equal labeling of left wing sources.. Media Matters is the LEFT WING advocacy group, funded by Soros, all fringe socialist academics get labeled by their politics, just as ours are..

THAT will chafe the Hell out of the media thought police..

Having to show both sides on an equal footing destroys the lefts primary weapon, distortion..

mark81150 on April 30, 2013 at 7:17 PM

If you want an objective paper, fine. That’s totally fine.
 
triple on April 30, 2013 at 7:05 PM

 
Can you name a current one?
 
I’m being completely serious. Just one. Rural, town of 200, anything.
 
Just name one.

rogerb on April 30, 2013 at 7:21 PM

I am theorizing that most if not all of the employees that would quit are donors to the Democrats. How is this not a good thing?
The Koch brothers should buy all the liberal employers and bankrupt the left.

meci on April 30, 2013 at 7:23 PM

If you want an objective paper, fine. That’s totally fine.

I just don’t see how having the Koch brothers accomplishes that.

Now you’re just biased in the opposite direction, which might be fun for you, but drop the whole white knight shit.

triple on April 30, 2013 at 7:05 PM

Well according to ResistWeMuch, I don’t see that they are rabid ‘right wing’ people.
So why don’t you enlighten us how they are so right wing?
Give me some real examples.

Badger40 on April 30, 2013 at 7:11 PM

The left really sees no difference between the conservatives and the Libertarians does it?

Which high lights their own extremist position, no other view point is NOT crazy wingnut extremism held by nutjobs.. There are a vast number of diverse views in the GOP..

only one permitted in the democrat party..

By no objective review can The Koch’s be considered right wing extremists, or even right wing.

But they do love painting with a brush a mile wide to smear any view unapproved by the leftist collective.

There are many positions the brothers have I disagree with, but that’s fine in a party of ideas. Unfortunately, we only have one. The democrats are the party of dogma.

mark81150 on April 30, 2013 at 7:28 PM

If the Koch brothers buy the LA Times, I’ll subscribe again… after half the staff quits!!

Khun Joe on April 30, 2013 at 7:29 PM

If half the staff quit under Koch ownership, that would leave half as many people likely to stand up to the owners — not to mention a huge loss of talented journalists who have built a wealth of LA knowledge and relationships over years of experience.

Isn’t the term “talented journalists” an oxymoron. Let’s face the facts: Most people end up in “J-School” because they can’t understand science and math and thinking gives them severe headaches.

Besides, who would hire these losers? They might just as well go on disability.

bw222 on April 30, 2013 at 7:33 PM

This has to be a trick question !

rik on April 30, 2013 at 7:34 PM

Koch Bros 2016!

racquetballer on April 30, 2013 at 7:35 PM

triple on April 30, 2013 at 7:05 PM

You’re just another inept troll . What a joke.

CW on April 30, 2013 at 7:38 PM

To all those soon-to-be Ex-LA-Times Employees:

We wish you all the best of luck in finding employment.

The new LA Times will strongly contest each and every unemployment claim and generally do our best to make you sick that the news goes on without you.

Sincerely, The Koch Bros.

CiLH1 on April 30, 2013 at 7:39 PM

If you want an objective paper, fine. That’s totally fine.

triple on April 30, 2013 at 7:05 PM

So it’s your permission they need. I pretty sure the Koch Bros. don’t give a crap about your prejudice opinion.

rik on April 30, 2013 at 7:41 PM

I call it poetic justice

MNDavenotPC on April 30, 2013 at 7:43 PM

Now you’re just biased in the opposite direction, which might be fun for you, but drop the whole white knight shit.

triple on April 30, 2013 at 7:05 PM

Like most of what a liberal will tell you is wrong with their enemies, that’s nothing but ignorant projection.

That is to say: you *don’t* know that the Kochs will make the paper “biased in the opposite direction.” They could just – gasp – defuse the left wing angedism and let the paper perform the way everyone agrees newspapers are supposed to try to perform.

There’s no evidence at all that they would make FOXNEWS in print. They probably want to turn a profit or minimize their losses, right? It is Los Angeles, right?

The main concern for liberal journalists is that they don’t *want* to stop being biased.

HitNRun on April 30, 2013 at 7:45 PM

Report: Half of staff may quit LA Times if right-wing Koch brothers buy paper

Great! That means the Koch brothers will only need to fire half as many people.

Oldnuke on April 30, 2013 at 7:45 PM

The new LA Times will strongly contest each and every unemployment claim and generally do our best to make you sick that the news goes on without you.

CiLH1 on April 30, 2013 at 7:39 PM

As long as the Kochs are spending money for the cause, they might want to let those unemployment claims slide past. Every LA Times journalist (who self identifies as the most biased in the field by quitting) sitting on the couch is one less “reporting” somewhere else.

HitNRun on April 30, 2013 at 7:48 PM

The key will be hiring fair minded editors..

Bring them another boilerplate left wing conservative hit pice and get sent back to actually interview BOTH sides, in equal numbers with the same amount of type to their positions.. and no “dog whistle” liberal hate buzzwords, like right wing extremist.. ultra conservative,… and they HAVE to use equal labeling of left wing sources.. Media Matters is the LEFT WING advocacy group, funded by Soros, all fringe socialist academics get labeled by their politics, just as ours are..

THAT will chafe the Hell out of the media thought police..

Having to show both sides on an equal footing destroys the lefts primary weapon, distortion..

mark81150 on April 30, 2013 at 7:17 PM

I’ve often wondered if a paper could make it by acknowledging that all ‘journalists’ have a political position, and have everyone that works there declare their party membership. There would be a right editor and a left editor.

The lefty ‘journalists’ would get the left pages (even) and the righty ‘journalists’ the odd. The front page would be divided down the middle. Reporters can write stories from the left and right, so the public can compare. If one on the left wants to ignore a story, they could, and v.v. They could even critique each other’s work.

slickwillie2001 on April 30, 2013 at 7:48 PM

Now you’re just biased in the opposite direction, which might be fun for you, but drop the whole white knight shit.

triple on April 30, 2013 at 7:05 PM

You worried about the right having equal time in the media?

dentarthurdent on April 30, 2013 at 7:48 PM

BTW
 

Half may be an underestimate. According to lefty Harold Meyerson, “A recent informal poll that one L.A. Times writer conducted of his colleagues showed that almost all planned to exit if the Kochs took control (and that included sportswriters and arts writers).”

 

Cries of media bias by the right are laughable.
 
urban elitist on January 2, 2012 at 10:13 PM

rogerb on April 30, 2013 at 7:53 PM

Can you name a current one?

I’m being completely serious. Just one. Rural, town of 200, anything.

Just name one.

rogerb on April 30, 2013 at 7:21 PM

Weirdly triple disappears like a minute cloud of flatulence.

CW on April 30, 2013 at 7:54 PM

Liberal tolerance on display again….could you imagine if every conservative quit their job if a liberal bought his company….most of us probably already work for liberals.

Leave it to the ideology of hypocrites and children to throw a tantrum because someone, they dont agree with on politics, might by their company….

Liberalism is truly a mental disorder.

alecj on April 30, 2013 at 7:57 PM

Now you’re just biased in the opposite direction, which might be fun for you, but drop the whole white knight shit.

Wow! A Lefty who actually admits that American newspapers are biased to the Left!

Admitting there’s a problem is half the battle, Triple.

Now, since you’ve shown yourself to be soooo concerned with bias in newspapers, it should be easy for you to provide us with a couple of links to other posts you’ve made around the Web where you show the same verve in denouncing the Leftist bias that you’ve just admitted exists. After all, if the notion of potential conservative bias in just one newspaper gets you that riled up, I can only imagine the freakouts you’ve probably had over the endless amount of liberal bias that exists in ALL the major American newspapers.

Take your time…we’ll wait.

rvastar on April 30, 2013 at 8:02 PM

Call their bluff. Wherever you stand politically, we can all agree on that, right? If you’re a liberal, you want to see the fair, balanced, impartial LA Times newsroom rise as one and walk out in protest of having to work for libertarian oligarKKKs.

Allah

A post opener that will go down as a classic.

Jaibones on April 30, 2013 at 8:05 PM

Cries of media bias by the right are laughable.

urban elitist on January 2, 2012 at 10:13 PM

Hey…aszsfukcer, I can name 100 liberals on the staff of the Chicago Tribune. Can you name one conservative?

Jaibones on April 30, 2013 at 8:09 PM

This is perhaps the greatest plan every devised! Please, start buying up leftist newspapers on a regular basis. Allow all the journalists to quit, then shut the money losing thing down. I’m almost stunned by the simplicity.

Didn’t I read somewhere that the there is a Boston newspaper about to go up for sale? The Chicago Tribune’s been on the block for what seems like forever (and the liberals think that is a conservative newspaper). Who knows, maybe the NY Times will eventually make it to the auction block! So many out of work liberal journalists, so much schadenfreude!

studentofhistory on April 30, 2013 at 8:12 PM

Works for me.

joecollins on April 30, 2013 at 8:13 PM

If you want an objective paper, fine. That’s totally fine.

triple on April 30, 2013 at 7:05 PM

Can you name a current one?

I’m being completely serious. Just one. Rural, town of 200, anything.

Just name one.

rogerb on April 30, 2013 at 7:21 PM

Absolutely..

Small town, Newark Ohio,.. pop about 70,000.. voted for McCain and Romney, by 60 plus points. Semi-rural and very conservative,, and the town paper leans hard left, prints reams of letters to the editors from the local liberal arts college academic left wing nutjobs.. prints Krugman and a host of local “guest” columnists with very lunatic conspiracy theories about the right..

and it’s dying..

They go so far as to harass shoppers at grocery stores offering ten dollar gift cards for your credit card number and a subscription..

pathetic..

The paper is 180 degrees opposed to their communities values, and wonders why their sales plummet.

mark81150 on April 30, 2013 at 8:15 PM

Newspapers are an OK start, but we need to start buying TV networks. The L.I.V.’s that we need to reach don’t do much reading – they all watch TV.

crrr6 on April 30, 2013 at 8:17 PM

The lefty ‘journalists’ would get the left pages (even) and the righty ‘journalists’ the odd. The front page would be divided down the middle. Reporters can write stories from the left and right, so the public can compare. If one on the left wants to ignore a story, they could, and v.v. They could even critique each other’s work.

slickwillie2001 on April 30, 2013 at 7:48 PM

A nice idea.. but they will NEVER go for that, the whole essence of left wing journalists is to deny the other side is worthy of debate, they are illegitimate, and unfit to speak in public..

and actual dialog, is proof they care about critical thinking, that they are open to better ideas..

and we know from decades of hard experience, that is, has never been true.

The left survives by distorting better ideas, by slandering opposition, by indoctrinating readers that Church going Christians, social conservatives and moderate views on their dogma are alien, evil and pretty much nazi Klan think..

the truth exposes them to daylight, and having to support their arguments with facts, not demagoguing the issues. Not like Obama calling our leaders hostage takers, Pelosi calling town hall opposition questions Nazi like.. Reid just making up slanders out of thin air..

That’s way they have no interest in a dialog, and come down with the vapors at loosing total monopolies on news sources.

If half of what they think about themselves as tolerant were even close to remotely true, they’d welcome another viewpoint with open arms..

not throw a complete hissy fit, that libertarians might have a voice.

mark81150 on April 30, 2013 at 8:29 PM

The left really sees no difference between the conservatives and the Libertarians does it?

Which high lights their own extremist position, no other view point is NOT crazy wingnut extremism held by nutjobs.. There are a vast number of diverse views in the GOP..

mark81150 on April 30, 2013 at 7:28 PM

I’ve described it before as an analog of perspective. The further you stand from the ground you’re surveying, the more distance is compressed.

Axeman on April 30, 2013 at 8:32 PM

libertarian oligarKKKs.

Heh.

davidk on April 30, 2013 at 8:33 PM

Only half? How can we persuade more of them?

Eren on April 30, 2013 at 8:40 PM

Is there video of these employees raising their hands affirming they would quit? If so, I hope the Koch Brothers use that evidence to kick their sorry butts out the door.

birdwatcher on April 30, 2013 at 8:42 PM

Cries of media bias by the right are laughable.

urban elitist on January 2, 2012 at 10:13 PM

says the clown commenting on left wing biased journalists potentially resigning in mass at the thought, a republican might for once have editorial control..

They kind of proved our point, they are VERY left wing biased, you’re just too buried in Moveon talking points to think on your own, or are simply afraid too..

Because knowing yourself, takes humility, and an acceptance of your own flaws. An acceptance, you can be wrong, something you have never displayed, leftist dogma is your religion.

You can’t even see how utterly wrong you are, because you LIKE your position, and reality is such a right wing view anyway.

mark81150 on April 30, 2013 at 8:43 PM

mark81150 on April 30, 2013 at 8:15 PM

The Newark Advocate, owned by Gannett.

Gannett is just another libtard newspaper conglomerate.

sentinelrules on April 30, 2013 at 8:45 PM

Golly, Gee, a single tear rolls down my cheek.

bgibbs1000 on April 30, 2013 at 8:45 PM

Cries of media bias by the right are laughable.

urban elitist on January 2, 2012 at 10:13 PM

On 18 March 2013, Kermit Gosnell went on trial. Since then, Good Morning America has devoted:

* 109 minutes to ‘other trials,’ including a 10-part series on the Jodi Arias trial

* 0 minutes on the Kermit Gosnell trial

I’m sure that there’s no bias there.

In the final week of the 2012 presidential campaign, according to a study by the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism:

Barack Obama received:

29% positive coverage

19% negative coverage

Mitt Romney received:

16% positive coverage

33% negative coverage

But, Pew is Faux News or something…

Resist We Much on April 30, 2013 at 8:51 PM

I’ve described it before as an analog of perspective. The further you stand from the ground you’re surveying, the more distance is compressed.

Axeman on April 30, 2013 at 8:32 PM

Interesting.. similar to the training on observation I had in the Air Force, optical illusions can easily fool the eye, it takes knowledge to see past tricks of the light.. Stare at a stationary light a few minutes, and it begins to shimmer and appear to move..

The left has become so fanatical in their own views, they see all of the opposition as being one shimmering light. When the reality is, we are many lights.. that, and you recall they continously tell us, we have moved farther and farther right, and now call Reagan the “nice” conservative..

when those of us who were there, remember how savagely they mocked and slandered him then.. my views haven’t moved at all since the Reagan years..

but they’ve shifted so far hard left,.. why.. it must absolutely be everyone else who became extreme, not them. They have no ability to observe objectively and just keep staring at the stationary light writing furiously about how radically it’s moving..

I think you point is well taken, I agree.

mark81150 on April 30, 2013 at 8:53 PM

Steven Lopez is a jerk. I exchanged several e-mails with him. I sent him proof that one of his sources was lying to him, on several stories. He didn’t care and wanted to know what I had against the guy. This doesn’t surprise me at all.

http://thechiefbrief.blogspot.com/2011/07/journalistic-standards.html

JamesB on April 30, 2013 at 8:56 PM

Wow! A Lefty who actually admits that American newspapers are biased to the Left!

Admitting there’s a problem is half the battle, Triple.

Yeah, now he’s (she’s, it’s) actually eligible for rehab!

climbnjump on April 30, 2013 at 8:59 PM

Steven Lopez is a jerk. I exchanged several e-mails with him. I sent him proof that one of his sources was lying to him, on several stories. He didn’t care and wanted to know what I had against the guy. This doesn’t surprise me at all.

http://thechiefbrief.blogspot.com/2011/07/journalistic-standards.html

JamesB on April 30, 2013 at 8:56 PM

You were hashing his buzz… so he attacked the messenger..

no surprise there..

The “reality based” community left the prefix un off on purpose.

and don’t question them, or you have an axe to grind, unlike their “anonymous” sources.

mark81150 on April 30, 2013 at 9:04 PM

Wow, I can’t believe I skipped this thread. I just saw a picture of two old dudes, didn’t know who they were and skipped it. But now I see that this is good stuff.

Let those lib traitors walk. Let them take a long walk. Off a short LA pier.

There would be so many people vying for those pathetic idiots’ jobs it’s not even funny. This is exactly what the Right needs to be doing – taking back the media. (Also the universities.) It is vital.

WhatSlushfund on April 30, 2013 at 9:04 PM

The Newark Advocate, owned by Gannett.

Gannett is just another libtard newspaper conglomerate.

sentinelrules on April 30, 2013 at 8:45 PM

People around here don’t even buy it for kindling to start small campfires or light charcoal.. we use the weekend flyers.. the Columbus Dispatch has more ads, the only reason anyone buys it..

but most just buy the Sunday edition for the massive ad dump.

We can get the left wings opinion everywhere, why pay for it, there are damned few objective or right leaning news sources. Maybe why they are so shocked and shaken when they discover that there is an alternative view in half the country.. but never in the papers and media..

mark81150 on April 30, 2013 at 9:11 PM

See! Self deportation works!

PaddyORyan on April 30, 2013 at 9:14 PM

Maybe they should just pack up and go home. Golly.

pambi on April 30, 2013 at 9:28 PM

Newspapers are an OK start, but we need to start buying TV networks. The L.I.V.’s that we need to reach don’t do much reading – they all watch TV.

crrr6 on April 30, 2013 at 8:17 PM

True. Plus newspapers are dying a not-so-slow death. Many have cut back to 3-4 editions a week. Others print daily but only have home delivery 3-4 days a week.

bw222 on April 30, 2013 at 9:36 PM

grtbr

S. D. on April 30, 2013 at 9:43 PM

See! Self deportation works!

PaddyORyan on April 30, 2013 at 9:14 PM

Threadwinner

I hope they buy it. I hope they fight any bene claims for the malcontent too.

Go Team Koch.

seesalrun2 on April 30, 2013 at 9:56 PM

If I had a nickel for every conservative fossil from a bygone era of American business thought it was possible to popularize their outdated thinking by buying a newspaper…

bayam on April 30, 2013 at 4:27 PM

I’m late to the thread, but I’ll send $1.00 (that’s 20 nickels,) to the charity of your choice for every legitimate example of this you can cite.

I know you’re anti-science. Are you anti-charity, too? Or, will you take my bet?

massrighty on April 30, 2013 at 9:58 PM

Kocktopus is good because they use ink.

SparkPlug on April 30, 2013 at 10:01 PM

If I had a nickel for every conservative fossil from a bygone era of American business thought it was possible to popularize their outdated thinking by buying a newspaper…

bayam on April 30, 2013 at 4:27 PM

You’d be broke?

WSJ and Fox News still the biggest and most profitable.

John the Libertarian on April 30, 2013 at 10:09 PM

If you want an objective paper, fine. That’s totally fine.

I just don’t see how having the Koch brothers accomplishes that.

Now you’re just biased in the opposite direction, which might be fun for you, but drop the whole white knight shit.

triple on April 30, 2013 at 7:05 PM

Fine; who defines the objective part? What metrics do you use for evaluating the objectivity of a newspaper.

How about this; If LA has two newspapers, each slanted in the opposite direction, then I can buy both, read both, and see both slants, and make my own decision.

No one’s pretending to be simon pure here – only your side claims objective/unbiased reporting, while delivering the exact opposite.

massrighty on April 30, 2013 at 10:10 PM

Fine; who defines the objective part? What metrics do you use for evaluating the objectivity of a newspaper.

How about this; If LA has two newspapers, each slanted in the opposite direction, then I can buy both, read both, and see both slants, and make my own decision.

No one’s pretending to be simon pure here – only your side claims objective/unbiased reporting, while delivering the exact opposite.

massrighty on April 30, 2013 at 10:10 PM

LA had two newspapers: the Chandler owned Times and the Hearst owned Herald Examiner. The Examiner went broke in ’89. The market choose. A conservative paper will go broke here.

danielreyes on April 30, 2013 at 10:20 PM

Is this threat to quit a promise? One can only hope so!

Note that if they do quit that onetime LA Times staffers will have to compete in a labor market featuring double-digit unemployment and flooded with foreign workers. The LA Times has long been an outspoken advocate for flooding the US labor market with foreign workers.

Karma!

kd6rxl on April 30, 2013 at 10:22 PM

The thing is the left would scream if the paper really just moved to something like actual fair reporting. Because they would be the only ones asking hard questions of Obama, covering Gosnell, covering Benghazi, covering F&F and Pigford and everything in-between. It would “look” like a conservative witch hunt compared to the average liberal rag, just for reporting what was.

It would be interesting to see if any of the reporters had an epiphany if they had there noses held to any of these stories by an editor.

TexasDan on April 30, 2013 at 10:24 PM

I like the first line, “call their bluff”. I’m sure the LA Times would get the same treatment, from Pravda and Izvestia, as Fox News and the WSJ get. They’ve been successful at delegitimizing Fox, in the eyes of the low information voter, to the point where, even if they see an alternative point of view on Fox, they’d be afraid to tell their friends. The point however is this would be one less news outlet liberals have and, it’s quite possible the other half just might become better reporters and actually have people reading the paper to find out the “real” news.

bflat879 on April 30, 2013 at 10:30 PM

Good. I hope they all quit. Maybe, they will have a chance of actually having a decent newspaper.

theaddora on April 30, 2013 at 10:31 PM

Editor in Chief: Ed Morrissey (must move back to California)

Style Page Editor: Allahpundit (must use real name)

Editorial Page Editor: Rush Limbaugh (must write, no talking)

Sports Editor: RG III

Entertainment Editor: Ted Nugent

InterestedObserver on April 30, 2013 at 10:33 PM

Report: Half of staff may quit LA Times if right-wing Koch brothers buy paper

LOL. From what I’ve seen in the LA Times the whole staff should be fired and replaced with actual thinking humans.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on April 30, 2013 at 10:44 PM

Would the Khalidi tape finally see the light of day??????

keioki on April 30, 2013 at 10:45 PM

Some of them would walk, but only because they don’t know better. Anyone else who needs the job will stay.

MrX on April 30, 2013 at 10:57 PM

As the conclave that selected Pope Benedict XVI started, rumor leaked that much of the staff of St. John’s Theologate Seminary in Camarillo, CA was threatening to resign en masse if a conservative Pope was chosen. The near-universal reaction among informed Catholics in Southern California was, “Why wait? You obviously only serve your own desires now.”

Unfortunately, no-one left under their own steam. However, several were moved to a timely or early retirement when Archbishop Gomez took over the Archdiocese. Few were aware of the change.

So it will be with the Times.

theCork on April 30, 2013 at 11:00 PM

Report: Half of staff may quit LA Times if right-wing Koch brothers buy paper

…thus illustrating the financial genius of the Koch brothers, whose investment will triple in value overnight!!!

If the liberal deadwood fires itself, restructuring costs plummet!!! And subscriptions will soar, because the product will become truly unique and valuable!!!

landlines on April 30, 2013 at 11:23 PM

Call their bluff. Wherever you stand politically, we can all agree on that, right?

It’s not even a threat Allah. It would be cheaper if the staff left on their own.

I think the perplexing thing is why they would be interested in the LA Times in the first place. They could buy other brands and build from scratch… They should look to what Murdoch did to Fleet St. as a road map. It would be much easier to do in the US with curent technology.

I don’t get why they would invest in yesterday’s media.

lexhamfox on April 30, 2013 at 11:27 PM

Heck with buying the LA Times, can they buy the state of California?

mpk on April 30, 2013 at 11:27 PM

Heck with buying the LA Times, can they buy the state of California?

mpk on April 30, 2013 at 11:27 PM

No one has to buy California, if you agree to assume their debts, they will give you what’s left in the treasury.

slickwillie2001 on April 30, 2013 at 11:32 PM

And go where?

jhffmn on April 30, 2013 at 11:34 PM

I am thrilled that the Koch brothers have put their bid into the LA Times enterprise. The men are philathropists, libertarians, and ethical entrepreneurs who have provided excellent employment to many. Let the crybabies leave in a snit; their credentials as honest journalists are suspect anyway. Let’s have some real freedom of the press.

onlineanalyst on April 30, 2013 at 11:44 PM

Half of staff may quit LA Times if right-wing Koch brothers buy paper

I wonder if these guys are replaceable?

BoxHead1 on April 30, 2013 at 11:53 PM

And go where?

jhffmn on April 30, 2013 at 11:34 PM

Newsweek! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHA

OxyCon on May 1, 2013 at 12:01 AM

“Well…bye.” – Curly Bill Brocius, Tombstone

Kevin71 on May 1, 2013 at 12:03 AM

Yeah, right, half of their staff exit my derriere, like where are they going to find work so soon in the LA area, a bunch of mediocre, talentless writers/journolists (I read LA Times every day and it’s pathetically blah and predictable), it’s not like they don’t have bills to pay and families to support,. Call their bluff and if they stand by it, all the better, hire real journalsits as in ethical , talented and fair minded, not hacks like the current LAT pack.

jimver on May 1, 2013 at 12:07 AM

“Half of staff may quit LA Times if right-wing Koch brothers buy paper”

-Tolerance.

@AsalamaTweetum

Opinionnation on May 1, 2013 at 12:42 AM

Fine; who defines the objective part?

I’m going to ramble, so pardon me in advance.

One thing I realized when I made the switch from diehard conservative to socialist liberal (right around 2009, natch) is that media is a very powerful tool.

Coming from 24/7 Foxnews, Rush in the car on my way to work and school, and right wing blogs like this one, malkin, and even LGF before he made the switch.. I saw the world against me. Liberals were trying to destroy america. Obviously the Iraq war was just, and liberals just wanted us to lose because they hated our freedom.

Turns out I was wrong, the wmds were never there, and it was a waste of lives and money. Oops. But it’s okay! We freed iraq. Totally worth 4k troops dead and thousands more injured. You know who convinced americans like me that it was worth doing? The administration, but with help from a media who didn’t ask tough questions and never did their job.

In 2009, the year I switched, I had less time to watch TV. I was helping run a company, working freelance in my off time, and the internet was coming into its own as a powerful news aggregator. So my news was less focused on one media corporation – more broad, more diverse. Google news replaced fox news, and I started to see there were more sides to the story than fox’s or rush’s take. I heard the full audio, not the 30 second clip glenn beck or limbaugh plays you on his show. In other words, context and a more complete story, something right wing media lacks severely, usually trading it in for the quick soundbyte and the reactionary panel. Instead of forming an opinion based on the story, fox and rush pick and choose stories to reinforce an opinion you already have.

And that’s when I realized right wing talk is so popular because it’s really comfortable and safe to hear your own opinions said back to you. Anyone who disagrees with your opinion is obviously a bad person and should not be trusted. That’s not liberal bias, that’s basic psychology working against you.

So knowing how powerful media can be myself, I came to form the opinion that media corporations shouldn’t push an agenda. It’s okay to hold editorial opinions – as every news organization does – opinion and analysis is an important part of our democratic society. However what’s not helpful is when you tailor the news to a certain political bent. News – the reporting of fact – should be impartial. I want the where, when, what, and how.

But it still happens. Of course it still happens. Fox is one example, sometimes copy/pasting entire GOP press releases as their own analysis. Yeah, this actually happened. Why did it happen? It probably has something to do with the fact that Roger Ailes, the guy who owns Fox News, used to work for 3 republican presidents, and wrote a memo called “A Plan For Putting the GOP on TV News”.

That’s not objective. But I understand as how you can see that it might be. When *everything you see* is fox, or rush, or beck.. anything else looks biased. That’s how propaganda works. Is it propaganda in the spirit of north korea and hitler? No. It’s the sort of propaganda that made you think that going to war with zero evidence was a good idea. And then they made you think it was the democrat’s fault our country’s money was gone. (After they just spent all your money in another country halfway across the world.)

So excuse me if I get a little concerned when a team who has funded, through their PAC, almost exclusively republican candidates (80%) – essentially bankrolled the republican party – tries to buy a newspaper.

You know what, buy the LA Times. Just don’t call it objective. You’re not fooling anybody.

triple on May 1, 2013 at 12:58 AM

What half would that be?
yup.
the parasites.

pat on May 1, 2013 at 1:03 AM

The Koch Brothers are not nor have they EVER been conservatives. They are libertarians.

Resist We Much on April 30, 2013 at 5:11 PM

Bing. Well done.

Jaibones on May 1, 2013 at 1:03 AM

They’re libertarians who donate 80% of their money to republicans.

triple on May 1, 2013 at 1:04 AM

Sooo…practicing actual journalism is a bad thing? They would rather quit? Bias must be an addiction for the liberal reporters.

jediwebdude on May 1, 2013 at 1:24 AM

There’s a model for a right-of-center daily newspaper… the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, owned by Richard Scaife (who, if you’ll recall, was frequently demonized in the Clinton years). Hot Air regulars are probably familiar with Salena Zito, who is with the Trib, for her frequent appearances in the headlines section.

The Trib is built on a smart business model for a metro — the company owns the Pittsburgh and Greensburg Tribs (Greensburg was the original; Scaife moved into Pittsburgh during a newspaper strike), plus several other smaller dailies near Pittsburgh and a ton of weeklies.

The combined Tribs circulations exceed the long-dominant and obnoxiously liberal Post-Gazette every day but Sunday (where the P-G habit is still strong, but fading).

The Kochs should look at a similar model if they do by the Trib chain — dump papers where you can’t build on the core city paper, but keep the ones where you can.

Next is to link with similarly right-of-center papers, such as the Trib, the WashTimes, the Boston Herald, the N.Y. Post, to develop a network to rival the Awfully Pathetic (AP).

either orr on May 1, 2013 at 1:27 AM

Nobody needs the LA Times. If it closes tomorrow, it’s not a problem.

virgo on May 1, 2013 at 1:28 AM

Geez, do they even have enough people in LA that can read to worry about who writes the propaganda?

Don L on April 30, 2013 at 7:08 PM

Nope, not in English anyways.

jimver on May 1, 2013 at 1:32 AM

Nobody needs the LA Times. If it closes tomorrow, it’s not a problem.

virgo on May 1, 2013 at 1:28 AM

Agreed, nobody would notice if it’s gone, so mediocre it is. Used to read it to find out about events (cultural and other) in the GLAA, but LA Weekly and Time Out LA do a much better job at it.

jimver on May 1, 2013 at 1:40 AM

It’s not even a threat Allah. It would be cheaper if the staff left on their own.

lexhamfox on April 30, 2013 at 11:27 PM

Then suddenly the “knowledgeable experts” would get their own education… that voluntarily leaving your position means that you don’t get severance.

Who said the Koch brothers weren’t smart businessmen? ;)

dominigan on May 1, 2013 at 1:44 AM

triple on May 1, 2013 at 12:58 AM

I’ll put our 4,000 troops killed trying to free a people from a tyrant who destabilized a region that produces a huge portion of the world’s energy up against your 55,000,000+ babies executed in slaughter houses in the name of choice, and spit on your claim of propaganda.

Oh, and do you want me to destroy you in public with quotes from all the liberal Democrats who claimed there were WHDs in Iraq, or are you just going with the propaganda flow and don’t have two brain cells to rub together to produce a coherent thought for yourself?

Liberal propaganda is popular because you don’t have to think, just repeat like a mindless lemming.

Oh… and that’s probably Bush’s fault too, right?

dominigan on May 1, 2013 at 1:58 AM

If you’re not all about having stuff you believe repeated back to you, then why are you here?

triple on May 1, 2013 at 2:02 AM

And another thing.

I’ll put our 4,000 troops killed trying to free a people from a tyrant who destabilized a region

So starting a war – based on a premise that was not true – wasn’t destabilizing to that region?

If you’re all about the stability of the middle east, then why are you starting wars over there for… nothing? Yay! We freed iraq. And it only took 10 years, thousands of dead soldiers, and billions of dollars. Good job.

triple on May 1, 2013 at 2:10 AM

triple on May 1, 2013 at 12:58 AM

Citing Media Matters who are known liars doesn’t make your case.

They just plain make crap up out of thin air and Photoshop.


Shutting down speech of the opposition is the mark of a fascist.

tetriskid on May 1, 2013 at 2:12 AM

Yay! We freed iraq. And it only took 10 years, thousands of dead soldiers, and billions of dollars. Good job.

triple on May 1, 2013 at 2:10 AM

Lol. A socialist pretending it cares about wasting money or about human life!

tetriskid on May 1, 2013 at 2:13 AM

triple on May 1, 2013 at 12:58 AM

Media Matter was shown to be liars covering up the Pigford scandal for over a year+

While Breitbart tried to expose it.

They lied and falsified reports.

They are garbage.

The NY Times finally exposed it.

tetriskid on May 1, 2013 at 2:15 AM

Citing Media Matters who are known liars doesn’t make your case.

They just plain make crap up out of thin air and Photoshop.

See? This is what I’m talking about.

My facts don’t fit your opinions, so you don’t believe them.

Unfortunately, your beliefs don’t determine what is true and what is not.

If you were to look further down the page, you’d see the video evidence. But obviously MM is lying… because… conservative media told you they do. See how that works?

triple on May 1, 2013 at 2:17 AM

triple on May 1, 2013 at 2:17 AM

Your facts come from a place known for pure fabrication.

The NY Times is the “conservative media” to you?

tetriskid on May 1, 2013 at 2:19 AM

The NY Times finally exposed it.

tetriskid on May 1, 2013 at 2:15 AM

The NY Times, of course which everyone knows is biased, except when they agree with you, in which case they are the gold standard of news reporting.

Is that about right?

triple on May 1, 2013 at 2:19 AM

The NY Times, of course which everyone knows is biased, except when they agree with you, in which case they are the gold standard of news reporting.

Is that about right?

triple on May 1, 2013 at 2:19 AM

Awww.. are you upset that there is confirmation and the Photoshoppers at Media Matters couldn’t suppress it anymore?

tetriskid on May 1, 2013 at 2:23 AM

Your facts come from a place known for pure fabrication.

Here’s the recording of Fox News.

Here’s the NRCC press release, on the NRCC website.

A reasonable person would recognize facts are facts regardless of where they’re posted, because they make a judgement based on evidence.

Of course, I don’t always speak with reasonable people. Lets see which category you fall into, shall we?

triple on May 1, 2013 at 2:24 AM

triple on May 1, 2013 at 2:24 AM

Media Matters is run by maniacs nothing they post can be trusted. They are just like the Westboro Bapists.

tetriskid on May 1, 2013 at 2:26 AM

I don’t care if they can’t be trusted. I just linked to a goddamn video of Fox and the NRCC press release hosted on their website. You can’t refute that with “but MM is biased”, idiot.

triple on May 1, 2013 at 2:27 AM

triple on May 1, 2013 at 2:27 AM

That’s your problem. Cite a more credible source moron.

tetriskid on May 1, 2013 at 2:27 AM

Dude, it’s a video of Fox News and a NRCC press release.

The two sources, if you haven’t noticed, are Fox News and the NRCC.

Media matters just linked to both of them and said “these match”.

triple on May 1, 2013 at 2:30 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4