You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Home Front: Culture Wars
Streisand Cancels LA Times Subscription
2005-12-09
LOS ANGELES - Barbra Streisand has canceled her subscription to the Los Angeles Times over the firing of the paper's liberal columnist. The newspaper dropped Robert Scheer and several other columnists last month; Scheer speculated he was let go because the Times had tired of his politics.
Or maybe it’s because the LA Times is going broke.
Perhaps the most liberal voice on the paper's opinion pages, Scheer had been a Times columnist for 12 years. He was a reporter for the newspaper for 17 years before that. "Robert Scheer's column, with its often singular voice of dissent and groundbreaking expositional content, has been among the most notable features that have sustained my interest in subscribing to the LA Times for many years now," Streisand wrote in a letter she sent to the newspaper and posted on her Web site.
That’s a pretty complex sentence for Babs. I hope her ghost blogger got a raise.
Streisand, a well-known supporter of Democratic candidates and liberal causes, wrote that by firing Scheer the Times had reduced the diversity of voices on its opinion pages. A shortened version of her letter was printed in the Times Nov. 23. The full letter is posted on her Web site.

In a note to its readers, the Times reported Nov. 15 that hundreds of readers had written or called to complain about Scheer's departure.
An L.A. Times “hundreds” actually means dozens.
As the Captain notes, the LA Times edited her letter and upset her even more. Heh.
Posted by:Secret Master

#9  Dear Mr. Martinez,

This letter is to inform you that I am canceling my subscription to the LA Times, and here is the reason why:

The greater Southern California community is one that not only proudly embraces its diversity but demands it. Your publisher's decision to fire Robert Scheer is a great disservice to the spirit of our community.

I'm almost embarrassed for you in seeing the LA Times being referred to as the "Chicago LA Times" on the myriad of internet sites I've visited in the last few days. It seems, however, an aptly designated epithet, representing the feeling among many of your readers that your new leadership, especially that of Jeff Johnson, is entirely out of touch with them and their desire to be exposed to views that stretch them beyond their own paradigms. So although the number of contributors to your op-ed pages may have increased, in firing Robert Sheer and putting Jonah Goldberg in his place, the gamut of voices has undeniably been diluted, and I suspect this may ultimately decrease the number of readers of those same pages.

In light of the obvious step away from the principals of journalistic integrity, which would dictate that journalists be journalists, editors be editors and accountants be accountants, I am now forced to carefully reconsider which sources can be trusted to provide me with accurate, unbiased news and forthright opinions. Your new columnist, Jonah Goldberg, will not be one of those sources.

Robert Scheer's column, with its often singular voice of dissent and groundbreaking expositional content, has been among the most notable features that have sustained my interest in subscribing to the LA Times for many years now. Apparently, previous leadership at the LA Times had no trouble recognizing Mr. Scheer's journalistic prowess in that they nominated him for the Pulitzer Prize.

My greatest fear is that the underlying reason for Mr. Scheer's termination is part of a larger trend toward the corporatization of our media, a trend that we, as American citizens, must fervently battle for the sake of our swiftly diminishing free press.

Sincerely,

Barbra Streisand
Posted by: Babs   2005-12-09 23:07  

#8  Great. Now she'll read it on the web, like everybody else.
Cheap bitch.
Posted by: tu3031   2005-12-09 10:12  

#7  2b: why would anyone, owning stock in the NYT or LAT not be running down the street screaming, sell! sell NOW!

Because American media companies are actually pretty well-run. They spout socialism, but are quick to cut back on staff and upgrade their technology whenever their fat profit margins are threatened. GM, by contrast, pretends to be run by capitalists, but is actually run like a Scandinavian socialist state.
Posted by: Zhang Fei   2005-12-09 09:06  

#6  Will she ever move to Canada like she promised? She needs to realize the press is a money making businees, not a propaganda machine for the left. When people stop buying the paper because they are tired of the bull%&$t leftist drivil the management have no choice but to change. The Time will have to shift to the more popular right of go out of business. This is great news!! Merry Christmas!
Posted by: 49 pan   2005-12-09 08:58  

#5  #1: why would anyone, owning stock in the NYT or LAT be running down the street screaming, sell! sell NOW!

It's called a "Short Sale" you do that when you expect the stock to fall.
Simply put, sell now, buy back later, the difference in the two prices is your profit (If it does indeed go down)
Posted by: Redneck Jim   2005-12-09 08:42  

#4  Perhaps the most liberal voice on the paper's opinion pages


...And that's saying something.

Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski   2005-12-09 08:34  

#3  Sorry if I don't get all hot and bothered, but why the hell does the "news" media think anyone with any working synapses gives two hoots in Hades about what this idiot does or doesn't do?
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut   2005-12-09 00:29  

#2  not be
Posted by: 2b   2005-12-09 00:09  

#1  why would anyone, owning stock in the NYT or LAT be running down the street screaming, sell! sell NOW!
Posted by: 2b   2005-12-09 00:08  

00:00