If you’re like me, you’re tired of being lied to.
That’s what got me started in media criticism. I would read the Los Angeles Times every day and shout at the newspaper’s reporters and editors over my cornflakes. “This isn’t true and you know it!” I’d yell.

Of course, nobody over there was listening. But they listen to me now… sometimes.
Back in February 2003, I started writing my blog, primarily as an outlet for my frustration at the bias, omissions, and distortions I found in the L.A. Times on an almost daily basis.
Since then, I’ve managed to get the editors’ attention a few times.
During the Iraq war, I questioned an L.A. Times report that a U.S. airstrike in Ramadi had “pulverized” 15 homes and killed 30 civilians. My military and other local sources denied the report. Based on my post, the editors backed off their initial claims.
In 2008, the paper reported that Judge Alex Kozinski had published sexually explicit images, including images of bestiality, on a public web site. My investigation showed that the images were humorous and innocuous… and were never meant to be viewed by the public. Eventually, the tide of public opinion turned in Kozinski’s favor, and several complaints against him were resolved with no explicit finding of misconduct.
Starting to think I was Making a Difference? Not always.
In 2006, I caught an L.A. Times columnist named Michael Hiltzik praising himself under assumed names on various web sites. As a result of my post, the editor took away Hiltzik’s column, explaining that he couldn’t have a dishonest columnist.
So they made Hiltzik a reporter. By the end of the year, he was publishing pieces on the front page. Today, he has his column back.
So yes, you can fight back. You can expose falsehoods.
Sometimes the editors will agree with you, and take action.
And sometimes, they’ll sneer at you and do nothing.

Although I have obtained more than 40 corrections from this newspaper, I have pointed out dozens (if not hundreds) of other errors that should have been corrected, but weren’t. The editors’ consistent refusal to make appropriate corrections has eroded their credibility in the eyes of an ever-increasing audience of skeptics.
For months I tried to tell editors that one of their Pulitzer-prize winning reporters was a hack who was sloppy with his facts and distorted the truth. Editors didn’t listen. Eventually, the reporter wrote a blockbuster story based on forged documents, exposing the paper to a potential multi-million dollar lawsuit. Only then was he fired – but by then, the paper had already suffered a huge black eye.
So don’t get the idea that media criticism is a rewarding experience, filled with triumphs, as the critic forces his local newspaper to correct its mistakes. More often, it feels a little like sprinting into a brick wall head first, backing up, and doing it again. And again.
Large newspapers like the Los Angeles Times have a hidebound, snooty culture. Many of the individuals who work there are decent, professional people trying to do the best job they can. But the culture of self-satisfaction is pervasive – as honest staffers will admit to you privately. Big Media editors think they are better than you — hell, they know they are better than you. Matt Welch and Tim Cavanaugh, who both worked at the Times, each say that it was a common joke for staffers to wish that they could just “fire our readers.”
Here’s the thing: increasingly, readers are saying, “You can’t fire us! We quit!”

Like most newspapers, circulation at the L.A. Times has been plummeting for years. The paper’s parent company has declared bankruptcy. The L.A. Times now announces several rounds of layoffs every year. My spies tell me morale is basically nonexistent. The paper used to make a profit; I doubt it still does. Reporters and editors alike believe the paper’s days are numbered.
And it’s only going to get worse. We’re watching death in slow motion.
I have mixed feelings about this, because many of the individuals there are likable people. But the arrogance has to go. The disregard for facts has to go. If that means that the institution must die, then so be it.
You can help kill it, and replace it with something better. That’s what I think Big Journalism is all about.
Anybody can do what I do. You need only stay in touch with what’s going on and care about the truth. If you’re reading this, that probably describes you.
Why not turn your attention to your local paper? Instead of complaining at the water cooler about the latest outrage on the front page of your local rag, why not start a blog and write about it? And send us e-mails here, to let us know what your paper is doing wrong.
We want to appeal to working journalists as well as citizens. Again: I know for a fact that the L.A. Times has quality people working for it, who appreciate the good things the paper does – who believe, even, that newspapers are vital to democracy — but who are sick and tired of the orthodoxy, the stuffiness, and the overweening smugness of the institution.
Well, to hell with the institution. Let’s chuck the institution overboard — and start seeking the truth, together. Let’s start right now.





Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
106 Comments
"Well, to hell with the institution. Let’s chuck the institution overboard — and start seeking the truth, together. Let’s start right now."
Excellent article!
Thank you. Together, WE as citizens can expose those sorry sunsabitches for the vermin they are. The solution to pollution is dilution.
Seek the truth, and the truth shall set you free. The truth does not change with the light of day.
Is that Mark Cuban screaming at the laptop? LOL Anyway, love this site. It's about time we exposed these "mainstream media" types for the pathetic apologists and frauds that they are.
Welcome! Excellent!
Signed, J-school grad. and former newspaper reporter.
I have had so much 'enough' my current mantra, like so many others, has become
ENOUGH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
OK! NOW I'm ready to rumble!
"Bring it on!"
god know what they're gonna do with that building… you don't want to tear it down cause it takes act of god to build something over 6 stories in LA.
Maybe they could gut it and make condos. It kind of takes an act of god to build condos in LA too though.
The writers and editors in the MSM have only themselves to blame for this situation. Their snobbery, condescension, knee-jerk leftism and political correctness are bad enough. What's worse is their abandonment of basic journalism standards. Few people trust the MSM anymore, so the time is ripe for a site like Big Journalism. Best of luck!
I'm of the age that newspapers were important to me and I loved to read a daily. I haven't had a subcription for 10 years. I also really liked Newsweek and US News coming weekly, those subcriptions went 15 years ago. I got to asking who are they writing about, who are these people, everything was foreign to me. After reading I had more questions than answers.
Good luck, we need blogs like this.
The fresh air feels good.
Outstanding!!! Keep up the great work, whether here or over at Patterico.com.
Soon the MSM will be out of readers and out of business…that is, unless BO bails them out with our tax dollars.
I hear the buggy whip makers are looking for help.
Well done!
And the LA Times is done for.
Go get 'em big daddy!!
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Twitter by maxx11: Had Enough of the Arrogance? Welcome to Big Journalism: http://bit.ly/6N0vAm via @addthis…
I've already done my part with the chucking. I don't have anything else I can chuck. I used to feel bad about getting internet from the same company what keeps Anderson Cooper in all those fabulous shoes but then they did a spin-off.
Part 1 of 2
Absent crisis conditions, we will never be able to elect a Reagan-like President as long as the "news" is determined by the MSM. These people are far more wedded to their left-wing narrative than they are to their craft, their credibility, and their accuracy. (Exhibit 1: Sarah Palin)
So congratulations to you, Patrick, and to Andrew for taking the first of a thousand necessary steps to alter the playing field. This means that we have to undermine the effectiveness of the left-wing media, which includes newspapers, magazines, TV networks, and (believe it or not, this is important to the 18-30 crowd) the Comedy Channel.
Part 2 of 2
But — and here is my point — why should we allow THEM to exclusively determine their death rate? Aren't there steps that can be taken to further undermine their financial viability, including appeals to existing subscribers and advertisers? Can't we be more proactive in accelerating this vital change in the media?
Hugh Hewitt used to start some of his broadcasts by announcing the phone number for the LA Times subscription cancellation desk. Who knows how many trees (and minds) were saved as a result of this effort.
I'd like to see EVERY conservative talk-radio host announce — on a daily basis — the cancellation numbers for their local MSM rags, not to mention garbage publications like Time and Newsweek.
They are clearly going out of business. Can't we help them along?
Here is to your good fortune, boys and girls. There are a lot of miles to go before home.
Best,
Lazy Jack
P.S. As a frequent consumer of news media when overseas, I find the U.S. outlets, particularly television, appear to tilt even further left than at home, if that is possible. Just finding facts and a balancing opinion stream at outlets like this helps keep a body sane.
http://www.thanksforthelaughs.wordpress.com
i'm with Steve- let's save minds and trees.
I don't agree Steve. Lots of R governors are at least plausibly electable. So they just need to Reagan up.
I don't know how things got so dire that the Rs and Dirty Socialists both had to start slumming it by looking to the Senate for candidates, but it's not healthy.
YES!!
The Truth is always a value worth fighting for. Congratulations, Patterico, glad to see Big Journalism up in fighting trim.
Amen, to everything that you said. Now we all have a place where the light of TRUTH will brightly (breitly?) shine! Welcome and glad that you have found a home here.
You started your website because you were tired of the LA Times lying? But the unceasing lies of the Bush Admin were A-Ok. Sounds like a good plan, dude. Keep speaking teh truths!?!
Apparently, the BBC is now investigating its coverage of climategate, based on viewer complaints. It's covered here:
ClimateGate.com
….a new site.
Hello, New York Times! …smile. …….Lady in Red
Get'em in the gumpy!
I'm a former LA Times reader who 'fired' the Times when they refused to release video footage in their possession of B. H. Obama thanking a PLO member for his hospitality. . . They can't disappear fast enough for me.
Chuck
This is pretty simple, readable and *heavy* also:
http://baselinescenario.com/2010/01/06/still-no-t...
Simon Johnson, former chief economist at IMF, on "Still No on Bernake" (re-appointment)
In general, BaseLineScenario.com is top drawer. ……..Lady in Red
wow, awesome article! The truth will set us free, so let's be steadfast in it!
I don't know how long the media elite have been lying to us – but I "felt" things weren't always what they seemed, even as a young girl in the '70s and a teenager in the '80s.
At least my own teenage Boys have a variety of outlets for truth in journalism.
Congratulations on the launch of Big Journalism.
"unless BO bails them out with our tax dollars."
do NOT give him any ideas!
I think it's dead certain the BBC will examine its global warming coverage a lot more closely than they've ever actually examined global warming.
I've wondered about a possible connection between ObowMao Stimulus Stash going to bogus zip codes…and State Run MSM not holding NPR/PBS-like telethons to keep the lights on…
"Well, to hell with the institution. Let’s chuck the institution overboard — and start seeking the truth, together. Let’s start right now."
It's "JUNIOR RODEO" ON!
I would love to once again wake up on a Sunday morning, drink some coffee, read an honest newspaper, work the crossword puzzle, while in my PJ's. I now drink coffee in my PJ's while I read news on the internet. I'm 55, and think the newer generations don't really care about having a paper newspaper. That's fine. Still, I miss it.
The Left has taken notice: http://mediamatters.org/blog/201001060034
Their first instincts are always to smear & dismiss. You know they're scared.
Well we know that MSM is controlled by a power bigger then the Government, just as Obama is controlled by someone above him. I just hope that Andrew keeps doing what he is doing and will not let those that are power hungry and want to control the world (the progressive) with their one world order get to these sights. We the people need to have some place we can go to hear and voice the truth and keep America strong.
HA! Indeed they will happyfeet.
I'm rather taken aback at how satisfying it is to not recieve any of my old subscriptions, I love it when they call. Our local paper, Anchorage Daily News, has shortened it's staff, thinned out the paper, and as it is owned by McClatchy we get call centers out of Florida cold calling us for subscriptions.
I love telling the call center staff that I know they're calling from Florida on behalf of McCaltchy and that we resent the fact that they're replacing kids like my generation who put their very first tie in their lives on and went door to door selling subscriptions for the now shuttered competition paper. Most of all, I love taking up as much of their time as possible explaining in verbose mode why I won't buy the paper. Forever gushing on about how nice it is in AK and anything else under the sun I can burn their employers clock on. It's quite satisfying.
"You can help kill it, and replace it with something better. That’s what I think Big Journalism is all about."
I couldn't help but see the parallel here with Big Obama and his attempts to "fundamentally change America". Kill it first, then replace it with…something better.
I'm very happy to see Big Journalism here. Thank you Andrew. I am with you all
Amen. I used to read the larger of Chicago's two major newspapers on a daily basis. My subscription ran out and didn't have it in the budget right then to renew. I buy it or the other one from time to time, but I realize how far they have fallen in integrity, and now content, and likely will never subscribe again. Thanks, Andrew for several great sites. A media revolution has arrived and our Republic will be better for it.
I just subscribe to the Austin American Statesman for the coupons. The rest I throw straight into the recycle bin. Rubbish.
Obamahealth will be looking for some prime real estate
There's a lot more than 385 miles between Austin and Lubbock!
Love the website, look forward to your posts. Wish I had thought of doing something other than yelling at my newspaper over my cheerios … would have made my kids a little more comfortable
Remember before the '08 election, when the LA Times suppressed the videotapes of Obama and Rashid Khalidi?
I had already killed my LA Times subscription years earlier. And I'll never go back to that paper in its current incarnation. I resist even reading their stories online, because I don't want to give them a single, monetizable page impression. They're just shuffling deck chairs on the Titanic over there.
That story of the LAT columnist is ridiculous. How embarrassing for that dude.
I used to subscribe to the Chicago Tribune. I canceled during the election when I could no longer take the outright promotion of Obama by the MSM. I figured I would still pick up the Sunday paper because the idea of not reading the Sunday paper seemed unfathomable. I have never bought it since. I also canceled Time during the election.
There is a columnist at the Chicago Trib I can not stand. It's not because he's liberal, it's because he's an arrogant, condescending, snarky and whiny liberal jerk.
After giving up the dead tree edition, I never read him online but a headline caught my eye and I left a comment. Well, he's one of those bloggers who often posts a response, but get this; apparently, if he doesn't like what you say, he won't post your comment but still leaves a response dissing you!
So, no one gets to see what I said while he's free to diss me. Not only that, he said that once someone has said something he doesn't like, he will never allow you to comment again. I guess he's one of those who fires their readers.
And don't think I was spewing vitriol and vulgarities either. He even acknowledged that I made some good points. My horrible offense was saying he was a hack who was better suited for a high school newspaper. Of course, he didn't repeat that in his response, he just slammed me. In fact, all his responses to conservatives are snarky. His manners are a one-way street.
In fact, the column I commented on was one long snide-fest. That's because he proudly calls himself a liberal and the column was about Palin.
Congrats and best wishes from an ex D&C guy. We really, really need this to work.
Patterico:
I think you're more bothered by the arrogance and the incompetence; I'm definitely more bothered by the unilateralist cheerleading, as when the Times announced (some years ago) that they would no longer accept any opinion piece opposed to gun control, because that subject had been completely resolved (I'll bet you can guess which way the LAT editors "resolved" it).
I unsubscribed to the Times when they ran a "review" of the book Strange Justice, the 1994 (as I recall) book by Jill Abramson and Jane Meyer that was about 250 pages of libelous trashing of Clarence Thomas, mostly over the Anita Hill allegations of sexual harassment. The joyous, ecstatic, almost orgasmic review was by a wench you might have heard of: Nina Totenberg of NPR.
Why did that make me unsubscribe? Because the Times didn't bother to inform readers of the review that Totenberg was a principal in those hearings… in fact, she likely instigated the entire lurid sexual accusations, possibly even coaching Hill to lie on the Hill. The omission seemed a bit too convenient to be accidental… especially coming after another review, this time of a book praising Capitalism that was reviewed by British economist Eric Hobsbawm — and the Times kinda sorta accidentally forgot to inform readers that Hobsbawm was a Communist.
I mean literally: Longtime member of the Communist Party of Great Britain and the Communist Party Historians Group. He joined the Party in 1936, stayed right through the Hitler-Stalin pact, maintained Party discipline during the Soviet invasions of Finland, Hungary, and Czechoslovakia (back when there was a Czechoslovakia); and so far as I know, has never formally quit the Party.
I have no problem with Hobsbawm reviewing that book on Capitalism; but I had a severe problem with the Times not troubling to inform readers that the reviewer (he trashed the book) has a political agenda diametrically opposed to that of the author… and probably that of most of the readers of the review.
After enough of those things, I finally called the Times subscription department and canceled, not even asking for my money back. When they asked why, I said, "I'm sure you know exactly why." The gal on the other end of the line sighed; "yes, I think so," she said. This was in 1994, I believe.
I don't envy you your self-appointed penance, Pat; someone would have to pay me an awful lot of money to read that, well, that Dog Trainer every day!
Dafydd ab Hugh
I cancelled my subscription to the LA Times over 10 years ago and never looked back. The reason? They had a huge spread, basically idolizing, an LA street gang. I wrote to the editor questioning their obvious love affair with a bunch of thugs. Meanwhile, my dad, a trauma surgeon in South Central, risked his life, dedicated his time and craft, and put his work before everything else to save this human debris from gun shot wounds and stabbings, on a near daily basis—not because he wanted to, but because he was bound by an oath to do so. I asked the editor to profile the doctors, the hospital staff, the policemen, and the victims of these thugs. I never heard a response. So, they heard mine. Every time I get a subscription card, I fill it out and return it and use their postage to do so. I figure that every time I send it back on their dime, I chip away at their profits and it gives me the "last" word.
Bravo to you and Bravo to Big Journalism.
Since when did the Bush administration run the MSM?
And since the facts are that the MSM lied about President Bush since the first presidential proimaries and are sztill lying about him and his administration, you don't even know what the truth is; you BDS suffering troll!
Well, we know that the N.Y. Times was LYING in the 1930s, so it's probably earlier than that.
please reach out, chuck. it's breitbart.
I have a friend who retired from our city newspaper after many decades. He started when the paper was owned and controlled by a family (if I mentioned the name you would know it) and the owner was like the fictional Mrs. Pynchon in the old series Lew Grant. She always emphasized getting the truth no matter the personal cost. That was a long time ago.
If you had a problem she was always at the company cafeteria and would invite you to sit down. She had dozens of reporters with police scanners who were ready to cover any breaking local story.
But over the years some insidious changes occurred. There are far fewer reporters today; much of their copy simply comes from the AP. The paper is part of a conglomerate now.
The internal politics is so vicious these days that it isn't so much what kind of job you do but who you know.
There never really was one tipping point with me but I can remember when we had a major demonstration in support of the 2nd amendment – 7,000-10,000 people showed up – and it didn't even rate a story whereas 5 people demonstration againsat the Iraq War downtown was front page.
I think much of the sins of the 'Mainstream Media" isn't so much deception but omission of news that doesn't fit their template.
Witness ClimateGate – how many even covered it?
Well, I have bookmarked Big Journalism now – in the words of Douglas McArthur I shall return
I'm in……..
Great article. Glad to see you here Patrick. You should, but, I know you won't, give yourself kudos for getting the smears against O'Keefe retracted. My gosh you were tenacious. Can't wait for more!
There was a time when the Times was a good, informative paper — I can just barely remember them. But I stopped subscribing years ago when I finally noticed so many of the same problems Patterico saw. I miss reading a good newspaper, but I don't miss the Times as it is now.
They can do like Houston, make it an Abortion Super-Center. http://cnsnews.com/news/article/59334
I agree. I havent read a newspaper in years nor watched CNN, ABC, CBS or NBC news. I get all my news from FOX, the Internet and over shortwave radio. The Big sites are a great source of information and I welcome Bigjournalism into the fold.
You have no idea how long I've waited to wear a fedora…
You are doing great work, Andrew! Thank goodness that people like you still exist in this country. There may be hope for us, yet.
Great article. It's so refreshing to read something that has been well-investigated and presented for a change.
As an aside, I picked up a Time Magazine for the first time in YEARS and it was 64 pages. 64 pages! At it's height Time used to have 2 to 3 Times more pages–many from adverts. Right now Time is a pathetic little rag.
What I'd like to know is who owns many of these publications because they are obviously being grossly mismanaged.
What a powerful idea…..challenge the news we read and see each day! Most of us have passively accepted that there was nothing we could do about the bias in our lives. Well, no more…TAWANDA!
Hell yeah, Patterico! Thanks and keep fighting the good fight.
this is parody, right?
True. But I'm feeling a little lost…what does that have to do with my comment? Not being snarky, I guess I must be a little dense…
A fellow once told me, "I maybe know something about 3% of the topics I read about in the papers. Of that subject matter, I almost always find the articles shot through with errors, misapplied definitions, ridiculous extrapolations and judgments, and any number of other falsehoods." I thought about it and have to agree with him.
Every time I read a piece on a topic about which I know more than the average person, I find each to be inaccurate in at least one material area, generally more, edited down to sometimes state the exact opposite of what I know to be true.
Add to that general mess the filter through which articles have to run in this day and age – editors with left-leaning agendas – and you have what amounts to a "Pravda" journalism environment.
One of my pet peeves is a statement by a talking head or in an editorial, hysterical in tone, that informs us that what's happening is unprecedented. To that I offer a quote from Harry Truman who was possibly quoting someone else:
"The only thing new in the world is the history you don’t know."
One wonders, reading or listening to the droppings of the vast majority of today's "journalists" and pretty talking heads, if they have the slightest clue about any, repeat, any history.
Many thanks for starting this blog. It's a refreshing antidote to the avalanche of spinning turds launched upon us daily by the spiritual successors to Hearst's "yellow journalism," today's "red journalism."
[...] Big Journalism has gone live (Andrew Breitbart’s inaugural post is here), and Patterico is among those on board. Comments [moderated] [...]
Michelle Malkin? Hot Air? Pajamas Media? Stop The ACLU? Human Events?
I don't know…looks like more of the same ol same ol arrogance to me. Same acolytes on Big Government are the same obedient acolytes here and ACORN still stands.
Syntax for you to screech acolyte is funny. Your love of Barry knows no bounds, I would recon you’d sacrifice your first born for the love of state, and your blessed Barry.
Thank you for this website! We have been waiting for this forum. Much success!
No like, really seriously, news flash, Bush is now gone, it's your ball!
Thank you for starting this project. We need something to counter the MSM in earnest.
One aspect of the National News that is not beeing address is the Spanish Media. There is such bias in this medium that the spanish speacking public in the US is not getting the facts needed to make desitions.
One site available that addresses this is http://www.theamericano.com. They post and translate articles in spanish giving the Conservative side of issues related to our present political environment.
Thank you again and God Bless.
please reach out, chuck. it's breitbart.
Signing on for this site. So glad this is up and running.
This site will be good only IF it does its own reporting and not just works off the stodgy old MSM biased reporting. I want some in-depth reporting the likes of ACORN scandals. Hopefully bigjournalism will shine lights in dark corners and not just pontificate about other reporter's stories.
When I lived in Anaheim, I refused to even take the free edition of the LA Times they’d litter my doorstep with. In fact, I sent this comment to Neil Cavuto which he used on his TV show: “I wouldn’t use the LA Times for catbox liner. The paper is so full of “crap” that my cat would think his box is full and empty himself elsewhere”.
I cleaned up the quote a bit.
I used to work for a newspaper (not in the news department) and saw a lot of both the good and the bad mentioned here. The people who've been in journalism for decades can be really nice, decent people, and at the same time ridiculously arrogant and condescending. The people who care the most about fairness and accuracy are also way too busy to do much about it.
The biggest reason I saw for factual errors was because of reporters and editors relying on "common knowledge" or on quotes from allegedly unbiased "experts" without ever checking the facts. Thus a global warming consensus that never existed gets reported as established fact and anyone who disagrees is treated like a lunatic.
But in their defense, they are continuously bombarded with complaints from real lunatics, gadflies, lobbyists, con artists, advertisers and complete idiots. They get insulted, screamed at, reviled and threatened with lawsuits on a daily basis, often for little or no reason. Figuring out who is actually worth listening to in all that can't be easy.
*yawn* What was that? No. Seriously. Was that a reasoned honest critique from the left? Oh – just more of the same? You lefites are just becoming b-o-r-i-n-g. No. Seriously – enough already. The One is your Bozo. Defend him and leave the Bush administration out of it. It's called a cogent argument. Most of all, grow up. Yes. Seriously.
You wish. Time to wake up from your lefty nappie! The saccharin dreams of The One riding a unicorn through a rainbow are over!
[...] started several website organizations such as Big Government, Big Hollywood, and the most recent, Big Journalism (we think he should join with us and rename that site with our scornful epithet – “Big [...]
Woo Hoo!!! So long overdue. Without the internet and sites like this, we would never be able to fight liars and cheats that make up the 4 pillars of power – Media, Government, Science, and Academia! Now We the People can become the most important pillar of power, as we should be.
Love the new site. Wondering if the same can be done to help stop the Arizona Republic's war against our county sheriff and county attorney!
The best thing to come along in printed media is the 'comments section.' Newspapers hate them, in the same way that cockroaches hate light. Decades ago, a perfunctory 'Letters to the Editor' section insulated newspapers. Today, there's no insulation. Indeed, the birth of this web site tells you all you need to know about the collapse of media as a trusted source of 'truthful information.' Right now, the media is hell-bent on protecting Obama than telling American citizens how chillingly close we were to a major terrorist attack on Christmas Day…and how close we are to another one.
The Truth Shall Set You Free…Just have a good resume on hand.
Albert Spitko
Renaissance Man
Bet you're not. I was referring to the fact that Austin has a lot of liberal/progressives living in it. Many consider it to be the most liberal city in Texas. The MSM being what it is, naturally, Austin's newspaper, the Austin Statesman, is liberal.
Luboock, however, is mostly conservative, and its newspaper, the Lubbock Avalanche-Journal, is also more conservative.
Hey Andrew, love your sites, when are the others launching?
I always figured it was the liberal journalism professessors at liberal colleges who breed the liberal journalists who then go out and spew liberalism to the masses so that the whole cycle can self propagate. I feel another Breitbart project coming on called BigUniviersity.com. Maybe hire David Horowitz to head that one up.
Matt Welch and Tim Cavanaugh point out a problem that occurs at the Los Angeles Times' neighbor to the north, too –The Oregonian. I can tell you that with great certainty.
Big Journalism! Hallelujah! Way to go, Andrew Breitbart!
Being the messengers the LSM won’t be…and providing the third-graders at Huffpo another acronym to chuckle over whilst proving, as always, their ineligibility to fill the shoes of adults! Two birds, one stone!
I see this site has the same odd, Dali-inspired time-stamping scheme as BG! No place like home, I guess…
Well done Patterico! Keep’em honest.
"I would recon you’d sacrifice your first born for the love of state, and your blessed Barry. " — I'd be too afraid it would grow up to be a hypocrite tea-bagger…I'd abort it.
I love it, it reminds me of the line from Network, "…mad as hell and we are not going to take it anymore/" This is more interesting, instead we are going to do something.
Correction, your kid would be a salad tosser so abort away…
YE SHALL KNOW THE TRUTH, AND THE TRUTH SHALL PISS YOU OFF.
I've been wondering when someone(s) were going to quit talking back to monitors, tellys, newspaper boxes, and stacks of papers at local coffee shops about MSM and heed the call "SUIT UP, YOU'RE GOING IN"… This is good, indeed.
Agree, totally. Now do your part and list those cancellation numbers. As for me? I don't subscribe to any of them so my part has already been done.
To paraphrase what someone said on another post at this site:
With all due respect to BigGovernment, Breitbart's service, or other of his blogs and sites, bigjournalism is the messengers, not the message. In order for the bigjournalism to be any use (or live up to its stated ideals) it needs to do more than cover other news sources, it needs to have enterprise coverage, it needs to be out there and digging up dirt on the administration, ACORN et al. They've demonstrated they have the resources and talent.
I want more than an opinion when I read here. I want a news source where the MSM isn't doing the news.
USA TODAY was/is a Gannett paper – just sayin'.
It was intended for a national rather than local audience, especially the traveling public. It initially was more lightweight than sensational. I don't read it so I can't comment on it's political slant or integrity. I assume it is no better or worse than the many other Gannett papers across the US.
Frank Gannett developed high speed color news presses to help sell USA Today and then spread the technology to all his other papers over time as they were able to afford equipment upgrades.
The best of luck to Big Journalism and Breitbart et al. This is the true future of reporting and I can't wait to see what comes.
When Ru Murdoch put USA Today on the stands with colored ink – that marked the decline as all pulp media immediately strove to compete for the sensational.
I miss Walter Cronkite.
I really can't take frustrated cross-fakers moaning and snarking like bar queens.
Ugh – and then came blogs and constipated the whole internet with trackbacks creating a population inversion of vanity mirrors.
Who's the airy-fairiest in the land? Pundit Queen.
Everybody's a petty demagogue – moving and shaking his or her or its tail and hoping to wag the world.
Huffington wanted a cheaper way to lose campaigns so she made a blog. Not feeling perfectly net literate after mastering email but not having the concentration to master html or the wit to sign up for a free website (or 300 – that's why captcha was invented- we were getting all that free webspace using scripts) she PAID someone to host TEXT…lol- the whole internet community was disgusted by the old fux who invaded and had no clue- but had so much vanity to express and so many erogenous zones to go bonobo over with a handful of likeminded mutually self polishing turds.
The net balkanizes. If there are 2 people in the world who care about something, they will find each other and hang out in a private chat excluding all who fail to share the special interest. When the special interest turns out almost always to be vanity, there really is something to be learned about the peculiar narcissism that public education now afflicts 2 generations of incompetents.
"salad tosser" — LOL Probably.
CHIDOG. Would that be Eric Zorn?
Just know your target, Patterico; don't be doing any more late-night boxed-wine-fueled friendly fires.
We'll get along just fine.
For all Pat's moaning, L.A. Times is still by far the best daily on the West coast and far bigger, stronger, more accurate and more balanced than any "conservative" Southern California paper.
The giveaway is that Pat never compares the LA Times to it's peers, he compares it to perfection. Yes, the paper is imperfect and it even makes really bad mistakes sometimes.
But for all the thousands of hours Pat has spent caterwauling and patting himself on the back, he's never done anything that would qualify as research on media bias. He can't tell you with any authority whether or not the LA Times is biased, because he's never compared it to peers.
And then there's his blog — a temple of unadulterated juvenality and right-wing bias where any and all attempts to mount liberal critique are quickly Big Brothered out and banned from the site: where there is no rule other than: don't piss Pat off. And, as we know, liberal thinking really pisses Pat off…