More evidence that the LA Times might be pro-U$C/ anti-UCLA
by Meriones on Nov 22, 2009 10:09 AM PST
Email
PrintToday's LA Times Sports section REALLY goes over the top in its one-sided portrayal of the Trojans yesterday.
Nope, that's not a misprint. I said their portrayal of the Trojans. You say they didn't play yesterday? That hey ahd a bye?
Apparently nobody told the editors and writers at the Times.
Column 1 of the front page of the Sports section is Bashke’s column on the game. (Check out Nestor's morning briefing on that piece of work.)
However, Columns 2 through 6, both above and 3 inches below the fold, are dominated by pictures of former $C receiver Sam Dickerson and his alleged “game-winning catch” in the 1969 game.
Let me get this straight — we become Bowl-eligible yesterday, $C has a bye, and the majority of the front page is taken up by $C colors on a player who “won” a game FORTY FREAKING YEARS AGO???
We WON our game, improved by 2 wins over last year with arguably our biggest game still to be played, and there isn't a single pciture of a CURRENT Bruin player on the Page C1 of the Sports section?!? Unbelievable.
BUT WAIT!!! THERE’S MORE!!!
If that weren’t even ENOUGH, so-called UCLA beat writer Chris Foster starts his article on the game with this effing gem:
There are college football programs that have fired coaches for six-victory seasons. There are coaches who have a lot of explaining to do if merely achieving bowl eligibility is a season highlight. there players who view the "Fill-In-The-Sponsor-Bowl as a minor consolation prize.
Not around Westwood. Not at UCLA. Not this morning.
I am NOT posting a link to the article, as I do NOT want to give this hack any more traffic and bolster his backhanded-with-brass-knuckles smack at UCLA, never mind that some football programs would fire a coach for suffering the worst loss in school history on its home field on national television.
Foster also claims that Rahim Moore “stood on the podium and promised victory next week … over USC,” without providing a quote of the supposed promise. All he has is a supposed quote by Rahim, ’People remember November." Doesn't sound like a promise to me.
Funny, Ms. M and I were AT the game. Stayed to hear the post game announcements by CRN and the players. Granted, we couldn’t hear everything said by the players, as we sit on the west side of the Rose Bowl. Still, we REALLY don’t remember any guarantees or promises like that, either from Coach Neuheisel, Reggie Carter, or Rahim Moore when they stood on the podium.
Ms. M, a lifelong Bruin — even more rabid than me — is actually asking if we should just cancel our 10+ year subscription to the Times at this point.
I hereby move that we only refer to any stories/ quotes/ reports by the Times as “alleged,” because it is now painfully clear that these guys do not value positive news about the Bruins of the past 24 hours to be anywhere nearly as important as Trojan trivia, whether it be from 24 hours or 40 years ago.
What a freaking joke.
M
This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of BruinsNation's (BN) editors. It does reflect the views of this particular fan though, which is as important as the views of BN's editors.
28 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
The best part of being a NorCal Bruin...
…is I don’t have to read that piece of trash. All of you folks in the greater Los Angeles area are perpetually f**ked by being stuck with one of the worst rags in all of America.
The L.A. Times is a joke and they’re going to continue to hack their way into oblivion. When those f**kers Splashme and Foster lose their jobs, I’m going to laugh at them. I hope you’re reading this Bill and Chris. You’re f**king losers. You suck at your job. Nestor does a better job than you and he’s doing it part-time.
You see, Bill, Chris (and rest of loser-ass L.A. Times staff), when your paper goes broke, you f**king losers will be in the bread line, asking for handouts. I’ll still have my job. And I am going to laugh at all of you for causing your own demise.
Of course, you’re all too f**king stupid to realize you’re putting your own foot in the grave. Idiots.
Throw Simers in there too
He quite possibly has less talent than Plaschke. At least Billy has a distinctive writing style, as forced and melodramatic as it is. At least it’s something. Literally millions of people can and do do what Slimers does, and that’s troll people. Yes, Slimers is a professional message board variety troll who somehow still has access to the people that he trolls. These venues, our AD included, need to honor the time tested method of dealing with people like Slimers, online or otherwise: DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS – CUT HIS ACCESS.
Chris Foster
I mean as one coached said, “What is you deal?” What is your deal Dude? Why can’t you just provide straight information instead of snarking up your report with short sighted and non germane nonsense? I mean WTF?
I think that Rahim actually did say that
but it was in the heat of the moment, and like he said later was more of a cheerleading thing
He did at the podium...
I remember it and being a little surprised. That being said, he did say in a later interview that it was a cheerleading thing.
I dont think so
I was at the game and I sat in section 4 row 14, right in front of the podium they did their speech on and I dont remember him promising victory next week.
You must have missed it
’cause he definitely said it. It was kind of lost in the madness when him and Reggie were giving shout outs to their friends and family.
2 Notes....
1. it is extremely important to commemorate each one of the purchased calls that SC has employed to beat UCLA or Notre Dame. This signifies to potential thugs that “we own the refs as well as the police.”
2. It is pronounced PlaSChke.
Frankly I'm surprised that you still subscribe
Even if the boycott that many here on BN have on the SUC Times doesn’t extend to online, at the very least, canceling your subscription hits them where it hurts. I can’t imagine that their online business model is at all profitable, considering that virtually every company that relies in large part on online advertising for revenue is hurting big time (the lone exception being Google), according to some of the reading I’ve been doing. The SUC Times is sure to have far more overhead unrelated to the product they produce than Google. If we can get everyone to only go to their site when they need to see some awful writing, rather than having it sent to their doorstep every morning, it could, and should, spell the end for the SUC Times.
Be careful about cancelling your L.A. Times subscription
Last year I ran into a writer for the L.A. Times editorial pages; a really good guy. We were talking about the a paper’s declining readership. Many of my friends have canceled their L.A. Times subscriptions principally because of the content of the editorial pages not because of bias on the sports pages. He said he just got an email from a reader who had previously cancelled his subscription. The reader, who had previously angrily cancelled his subscription, was so upset an another liberal Times’ editorial that he was now irate because he could not cancel his subscription in protest. I guess that sometimes cancelling a subscription only gets you angrier later on when a Times writer gets it wronger than they ever have before.
I don't see why that matters
If you want to look at a cancellation as an act of protest, that’s fine. I look at it as putting another nail in their coffin. Saying that you shouldn’t cancel now because you might want to cancel later doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to me. The only reason to get upset about such things is if you think that a lot of other people are reading what they write. That’s becoming less and less true, and so there’s less and less reason to get angry about what they write. If anything, I use these incidents and examples of bias as a platform to urge others to let the dinosaur die and quit paying to keep their lights on.
Sorry, that doesn't make sense peggysue
The point we’re trying to make is that every cancellation takes money out of the pockets of the L.A. Times and hastens its ultimately collapse.
That collapse will lead to those douchebags Foster, Splashme, and Slimers not having a job. Which will lead to me laughing at those f**king assholes.
Well it makes at least a little itsy bitsy sense
I doubt that unhappy Bruins will bring down the Los Angeles Times—other pressures will probably continue to debilitate the paper. But one thing is true—everybody I know who cancelled their subscription (again for reasons other than sports coverage) could not be happier. The act of cancelling a subscription is the equivalent of yelling at the top of your lungs—get off my driveway now!
I, for one, am not going to cancel my Times subscription. A couple of reasons. First, Bill Dwyer. I talked to him maybe 14 months ago. He is a guy with integrity and he expects that from collegiate athletes. I agree when he was the sports editor, his section did not hold the unconscionably crooked Figueroa based athletic program accountable as it should. But Dwyer will extol the greatness of John Wooden and Ben Howland not merely because of their teaching, coaching and leadership skills but also their personal integrity. (He and Coach Wooden at the time had lunch twice a year. I do not know if they still do.) Dwyer is a serious columnist.
Second, the paper covers other issues, like ones that really count—war, peace, terror, crime, education, economic dislocation, and corrupt politicians and lawyers—and there is no other newspaper in town that even tries. And without newspapers we are dead.
Third, if you believe a Times writer is off base (and they are and it is often obvious) email the reporter and the editor (of the whole newspaper). Don’t threaten the reporter and his editor. Explain why the reporter leaves you with impression that he is biased. And don’t send one email and be done with it. When the next biased article comes out explain it again—politely but directly. Most Times reporters will return an email unless it is abrasive or insulting or threatening and the like. And make sure the editor of the newspaper knows where you stand. Some of our complaints relate to placement of favorable UCLA articles (like on page 9 next to an article about how Texas Nazarene can’t play defense at away games) and misleading headlines. And that paper has given inmate Simpson’s noble alma mater a pass on corruption issues.
Anyway that’s where I stand and other good folks do disagree. There is nothing wrong with cancelling a subscription—it’s called free speech! If your passion bucket becomes fuller by cancelling your subscription—cancel the little booger—we need all the passion we can produce particularly this week! And besides, when you do, your driveway is never messy.
Go Bruins!
Sorry, Peggysue, but I disagree totally
The fishwrap is beyond salvation. It has utterly and completely sole its soul to the dark side of the force. It has been that way for decades. There is nothing that can be done to change the situation. Just go back in time here in the BN. Look at the archives. People have tried to reason with the ’wrap’s editorial staff, but with exactly the same success people have had trying to reason with Osama Bin Laden.
You may be right that a Bruin boycott may not be enough to bring it to its knees, but we will never know as long as people think it can’t happen, and think that one continued subscription isn’t enough to make a difference.
And it’s not exactly like you will be devoid of news sources. There are plenty of alternatives. If nothing else, you can write to the just$c* campus and have them send the Daily trOJan directly to your home. There is no real difference, except you can wrap more fish with the fishwrap.
+1
What I meant peggysue, is a cancellation is a cancellation. If someone is subsequently still dissatisfied with the LAT after cancelling it, it’s their bad for picking the POS LAT up again. ;)
by Bellerophon on Nov 22, 2009 10:30 PM PST up reply actions
LAT Disappointment
I was eagerly waiting to read the paper this morning. Today was the day when we would finally see the Bruins making the big headline and getting the large picture. However when I took out the sports section, all I saw was highlights and pictures from the $C game in ’69. What a joke. This is the biggest bias I have seen in the press EVER.
Actually it was a replacement piece...
Remember when the Times Sports staff said the reason they couldn’t complete their investigative journalism of Reggie Bush was because all the writers were tied up with the Lakers playoffs? Well, they finally were going to publish on this near the end of the following football season (i.e., now) but for undisclosed reasons their Pulitzer wannabes didn’t get the story quite in order yet.
complete BS
They never even started….
About the only thing half decent these days is their Laker coverage. Even that is nothing like it used to be.
Weekend edition
My buddy bought a paper from one of the roaming vendors in Lot H yesterday, primarily for the bonus Aikman poster that was thrown in, but also because he wanted to check the scores and write-ups of the HS football games from the night before. Of course he finds the very same $c article on the front page of the sports section and promptly realized that his “free” Aikman poster actually cost him a dollar because the paper went right in the trash.
YES YES YES YES CANCEL
“Ms. M, a lifelong Bruin — even more rabid than me — is actually asking if we should just cancel our 10+ year subscription to the Times at this point.”
Cancel the subscription immediately. Find something else to wrap the garbage in. Remember, Bruins, anyone who sends one zloty to that [expletive deleted] piece of … well, you get it… is just enabling it. Every subscription, every single paper sold, every click on any of the ’wrap’s web thingies is intepreted as endorsement of its policies. Obvoiusly, there will never be any acknowledgment of any cancellations, but sooner or later, when there are only members of the trOJan family left on the subscription list, things might happen. (Of course, most people in the trOJan family can’t read anyway, but that’s beside the point.
I am happy to say that I cancelled more then thirty years ago. I do NOT click on links to the ‘wrap. If I knew who advertised, I would let them know that I wouldn’t buy their products as long as they were listed in the ’wrap.
Let me try this analogy. If there were a cocaine/heroin dealer on the corner, who also molested children as a sideline, would you even consider making any contributions just because once in a while he yelled something in your direction? Obvously not. The ’wrap is pure nuclear waste. It is to be avoided at all costs.
Final straw for me
We just cancelled. I had the exact same reaction as Meriones.
I just wish the Press Telegram could figure out how to print a box score for a UCLA basketball game now. Certainly Burlison is far better than anyone the times has.
Just guarding against potential liability concerns, my friend.
Although I should probably do the Fox News thing and make each of my accusations in the form of a question.
M
"In this program your passion bucket must be full to play SC." -- CRN, to Dan Patrick, 1/2008
Truth is a defense, my man
And umm, any reasonable reader would see the bias. It’s pretty apparent and pretty pathetic.
by Bellerophon on Nov 22, 2009 10:31 PM PST up reply actions
And would they sue, with truth as a defense?
Hardly likely. Who would take the case? No lawyer would take it on a contingency. They could hire a mega firm and pay it by the hour, but a case like that would hasten the disappearance of the ’wrap, so that would not be a bad thing.
But first and foremost, they couldn’t possibly stand the discovery process. What would any of those pinheads say during depositions? And remember the standard during a depo – anything that’s relevant to the subject matrer and which might lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. That would open up everything? “What have you done to look into the scandals at justSC*?” And on and on. Depos would never end.
And you would have hundreds of lawyers willing to help with your defense.
That’s why you rarely see just$c* filing defamation lawsuits against anyone? In fact, you’ve never seen any and neither have I. They are much, much too smart to file one. Cheatie Petie has been called Cheatie Petie, not Allegedly Cheatie Petie for years. Seen any lawsuits? Think he wants to have his depo taken?
As long as just$c* is what it is and does it it does (not what it allegedly does), its critics are lawsuit-proof. In my opinion. And statements of opinions are probably not actionable either.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
