Nuff said. Except for this: the fact that they got it right five years ago makes it all the more discouraging that they aren't getting it right this time. Sigh.

The Chandler Family losing control of the paper certainly didn't help. Kevin, have you been watching the Frontline series News War? There was an interesting segment on the LA Times. Any thoughts on the LAT's changing ownership or the Frontline series if you've seen it?

Here's what I wrote the PBS Ombudsman:
The Frontline report entitled "News War" need not have co-opted the militaristic term "War." The report discusses a recent misuse of the media, not an armed conflict. Obviously, "The war on poverty . . . on drugs . . . on terror . . . on cancer . . . etc" draws more attention than more accurate descriptors. If a viewer were to announce "I swear � If Tim Russert allows one more guest to remain on talking points, I am going to find him and shoot him," that would be a news war. This, however, is not a war of any kind.

Old Hat: The Chandlers sold the paper well before 2002. I don't think that really affected anything.

I haven't seen the Frontline series, but I'm definitely aware of the soap opera that's unfolded at the LAT ever since the Tribune Company bought it. It's a real tragedy, and by far the worst part is that it looks like we haven't seen the worst part yet.

The LA Times has been going downhill every since the Tribune company bought it. It's editorial page is becoming more and more conservative in the one of the most liberal towns in the country. Moreover, the overall reporting and style of the paper is becoming worse. It's starting to look more and more like USA TODAY.

I really hope that the Tribune company sells the LAT sometime soon, so we can get our LA Times back.

Moreover, the overall reporting and style of the paper is becoming worse. It's starting to look more and more like USA TODAY.

Well worth watching the Frontline series -- there are interviews with a Wall Street analyst and a bean counter from the Tribune Company talking about how pointless it is for the LAT to have reporters in Iraq. Reporting on war and stuff should be left to the NYT and WaPo...LAT should focus on local sports, fashion and Hollywood gossip, sez the two money people. Read: Angelenos are too stupid to care about anything else and that war reporting stuff cuts into profits too much. Also, an interview with the LAT's new hack editor. Scary times.

If George Bush wants war on terra he can have it. But it aint happening in Iraq. Who are we at war with?

When the idiot son announced "mission accomplished" he was right in the sense of his own goal to topple Saddam Hussein. And that was the war there. Over.

After that the US became an occupying power involved in a police action. Something said gunslinging idiot did not want, expect or plan for.

It is the politicians and US citizens inability to recognize this simple fact that keeps the present situation shrouded in something that it most assuredly is not.

The Democratic Party needs to reframe the debate. Withdraw the war powers and only fund the police action if the money is funded by offsets or taxation.

Ah, Kevin.

Looks like the LAT finally gets it. Even though they were horribly wrong at the outset. I guess they saw how stupid they wound up looking and wanted to get on the winning side from the get go on this one.

Fact is, the surge is working splendidly at this point. Terror attacks down 80% since Feb. Iraqis reported to be feeling more optimistic and are ready to embrace democracy. Cell phone sales at all time highs. Mutqada nowhere to be found (smart boy.)

I wrote my congressmen today to beg them to support the surge. Abandoning it now, or micromanaging it with Pelosi at the helm would undercut our effots and leave the President without room for manovure.

I tremble for my country.

notthere: After that the US became an occupying power involved in a police action. Something said gunslinging idiot did not want, expect or plan for.

Yes, this was true.

However, Iraq now has its own democratically elected government. The US is an ally. We are fighting at the request of the elected Iraqi government to help Iraq defend itself against various insurgents and terrorists

KD: Except for this: the fact that they got it right five years ago makes it all the more discouraging that they aren't getting it right this time.

How much do you suppose their shift has to do with the post-2002 Upheaval on Los Angeles Times Editorial Pages? From the NYTimes, June 13, 2005:

Michael Kinsley shook up the editorial staff of The Los Angeles Times recently, transferring four of his eleven writers, letting one go, and outsourcing some editorials to freelancers....

...Jacob Heilbrunn, an editorial writer who will be leaving the newspaper in July, said that "there's a good deal of disgruntlement and smashed crockery" over the changes and how they have been handled.

"Mike's coming in and selling a new model," Mr. Heilbrunn said. "He's an innovative free market guy who's basically saying, 'You may have won all these prizes but you're the General Motors of journalism, trying to sell outdated gas-guzzlers while everyone else is moving on to hybrids. Let's slash the workforce, get creative, and start outsourcing.' "

The news industry has become enamored with content packaging -- flashy graphics, the dumbing down of news, and personality punditry ("outside voices in the editorial and op-ed pages from people who aren't necessarily professional journalists"). The public knows fluff when it sees it and they aren't willing to pay for it. That's what TV is for. Readers want to read and it helps when the words aren't a rehash of what you can read for free online. Editorial op/ed pages used to be a place where revolutionary ideas were fostered. See The Atlanta Journal-Constitution's Ralph McGill and the civil rights movement. People respect spines. May the ghost of Molly Ivins visit the LAT's editorial management.

Sorry I missed the Frontline series, Old Hat. Sounds like worth seeing.

Bah! ...quest to woo young readers.

egbert --

what the "success" so far tells you is that those who say it requires a higher concentration of troops to successfully suppress an insurgency and supply stability and some level of law and order to an occupied country were all along right.

Here we have a concentration of US troops and all the passably proficient Iraqi forces in Baghdad. And what is Petraeus already calling for? More troops and a move into Sunni areas north of Baghdad.

You don't have to a genius insurgent to know when to lie low. What matters now is how they manage to remove their ability and desire to resume when the US lower their density.

What this does tell you is that trying to do a war on the cheap has cost many, many unnecessary lives and injuries.

It underlines thae fact that this has been the most incompetent US adventure ever with unpredictable costs yet to accrue.

"Cell phone sales at all time highs."

That might be a bad sign. If those cells phones are used to trigger IEDs, we shouldn't be happy about it. And if the terrorist are buying new cellphones to lay low, that only means they catching on to our tactics. So far, the surge seems to be scaring some insurgents into their holes, but they will be back. I guess if the surge lasts 15 to 20 years, it might work. By that time, the Iraq war will have destroyed America's military and China control most of the world's oil. And the Republicans will be saying it was all worth it.

Kevin - so you really DO think General Nancy Pelosi should be able to micromanage the Iraq War from DC.

Cell phone sales can be expected to reach all-time highs when the infrastructure of the landline system is in rubble.

The resolution Congress passed early today authorizing the use of military force against Iraq gives too much power to this and, potentially, future presidents to attack nations unilaterally based on mere suspicions.

I think that this is one of the untold stories of Congress giving Bush the AUMF resolution.

When members of the Senate were asked both at the time and as recently as a week ago why they voted yes, some got off the top talking point ("to stand behind Bush and not undermine him in trying to disarm Saddam") and said that they thought "the President" (not necessarily Bush, but whoever is in that office) should have that power.

Which senators said this? All who are running for President in '08. Kerry made no bones about it at all in '04.

That's the real scandal of this. They are so consumed with their own lust for the office and the power that goes with it that I think it's what keeps them from putting up serious blocks to Bush's "unitary executive presidency" and his abuses of the office these last six years. I think they're hoping to use this Bush-Cheney administration as precedent for when one of them takes over the office.

Just about every president in our history has wanted to be able to bypass Congress (and the Constitution) and be able to use the awesome power of the U.S. military as he has seen fit. Certainly every President in the last fifty years has wanted that power, and a few ignored the Constitution (and gotten away with it) in order to get us into Korea, Vietnam, Lebanon, Kosovo, Iraq, etc. Ever since conservatives have taken over U.S. foreign policy, we've had rogue governments disregarding the Constitution.

I don't see getting back on course with any of these candidates, and as an old dem, this pains me.

Old hat,

The funny thing is that LA has been one of the clarion voices against the war, but there is no need for our local paper to report on it. Maybe the Tribune company would prefer me reading the Wapo.

Blue Girl, Red State (aka Global Citizen) >"...when the infrastructure of the landline system is in rubble."

Been reading John Robb have ya ?

Sounds right in line with his perspective (say good bye to the weaker nation states etc).

"When you give food to the poor, they call you a saint. When you ask why the poor have no food, they call you a communist. " - Archbishop Helder Camara

global Guerrillas is bookmarked. i need to add it to my blogroll.

Faux-Liberal,

Still waiting for evidence of your past liberal leanings. I have not yet heard one liberal position you supported in the past. Maybe I should call myself ex-conservative, because I'm as much an ex-conservative as you are an ex-liberal.

However, Iraq now has its own democratically elected government. The US is an ally. We are fighting at the request of the elected Iraqi government to help Iraq defend itself against various insurgents and terrorists

Posted by: ex-liberal on March 12, 2007 at 9:00 PM

Moreover, the U.S. is not an ally of Iraq, but the occupier of Iraq. To be an ally of a nation that nation's government must have a monopoly of force within that country (IOW sovereignty). Iraq does not or do I need to explain this further.

Obscure sci-fi pun ahead:

I'm just waitin' on a Trane.

the infrastructure of the landline system is in rubble.

There was little of such infrastructure: phones were severely curtailed under the Baathists. What infrastructure did exist was mostly for military purposes.

Building the infrastructure for the cell phones, and powering the infrastructure with electricity, is one of the modest accomplishments of the post-Saddam Hussein Iraqi government and private sector.

The whole communication system is better than it was: newspapers and magazines, tv stations, radio stations, cell phones, internet subscribers (and internet cafe users) are all dramatically more numerous than pre-OIF.

You know, folks, my Barack Obama file is getting mighty thick.

How about yours?

The latest piece is furnished by the Rev. Al Sharpton, who had this to say today about your latest enthusiasm:

"'Why shouldn't the black community ask questions? Are we now being told, "'You all just shut up?'" Sharpton told CBS 2's Marcia Kramer Monday. "'Senator Obama and I agree that the war is wrong, but then I want to know why he went to Connecticut and helped [Sen. Joseph] Lieberman, the biggest supporter of the war.'"

So -- it takes Sharpton to remind you folks that your latest enthusiasm -- Barack Obama -- helped do in your last enthusiasm -- Ned Lamont. In short, your latest enthusiasm helped do in one of the brightest of the bright and helped return one of the darkest of the dark on the Iraq War.

Oh, gosh, don't tell me you guys forgot! Don't tell me you didn't know!

(By the by, no mention yet -- not a peep -- from Marcos Moulitas Zuniga. Wonder why.)

Like I said, my file on Barack Obama is getting mighty thick -- yes, mighty thick indeed.

(Footnote: "Et tu, Brute?� is used to express surprise and dismay at the treachery of a supposed friend.)

LMAO @ John Robb.

Anyone who claims that they are a futurist and writes in support of that claim that they were "first professional analyst to cover the Internet in 1995-97" is seriously disconnected from reality.

Oh some of it's way flakey - but there is a kernel in there now and again....

Noah: "The LA Times has been going downhill every since the Tribune company bought it. It's editorial page is becoming more and more conservative in the one of the most liberal towns in the country."

That's hardly a surprise, considering that it's also the parent company of the Chicago Tribune, which twice endorsed for election the current occupant in the White House -- and Chicago is hardly a right-wing bastion of the neocon cuckoo-for-cocoa-puffs crowd.

Kevin - I live in Upstate NY and had been reading the LA Times for a number of years now. I'm about to give up. Dumping Jon Chait - and even, for that matter, keeping Jonah Goldberg WHILE dropping Max Boot is one of the final straws.

And their education coverage - my field - is just sad. No wonder California is, well, you know. Let me put it this way: Do indeed find out what the LA Times editorial board thinks in a particular subject with respect to education: Probably, mostly, the opposite is likely true. As but one example, one of the bigger national education policy disasters at this time is mayoral control of the schools (or at least the way the mayors would have it) - a disaster if anyone cares to look. (Even Bloomberg's record is far more uneven than appears at first glance.) But, I digress. In any event, sad to see the LA Times collapse like this.

Lord Cheney is never off-topic:

Hey guys, dolls, liberal trolls, and my flying monkey crew,

When you do you think is the VERY best time to pardon Scooter the War Hero?
By best I mean: When will we piss off the maximum number of dirty liberals?

Think hard about it.

Because I want to beat the fuck out of these bastards with a bat.
I want to bash their brains in and see blood on the sidewalk.
You see: No one fucks with me...
No one...
Got that?

Oh, ye, of little memory.

The Los Angeles Times for most of its history has supported Republican candidates.

It may be "going downhill" today but not because it supports Republicans. And not because it seldom supports Democrats.

How many changes in the front office has the LA Times gone through in the last 5 years? The guy in charge now is a drone from the newspaper that endorsed the boy king twice.

Fact is, the surge is working splendidly at this point.

The fact is, Bush's surge is doomed to fail.

A lot of people are going to die and many more are going to suffer debilitating injuries (Americans and Iraqis). A very few are going to get even richer than they already have become through this administration's policies, while everyone else is going to lose, forever, a way of life that we all thought was assured if we "played by the rules, studied and worked hard, invested in ourselves, in America, and in our future."

In six years (doesn't it feel like much much longer?), Bush-Cheney and Republicans have damaged the nation irrepairably. The damage that they're still inflicting around the world is going to have negative repercussions for decades to come. And with Democrats unwillingness to cut off the funding, Bush-Cheney and the GOP have another two years unfettered, to make it all even worse.

That's hardly a surprise, considering that it's also the parent company of the Chicago Tribune, which twice endorsed for election the current occupant in the White House

Worse than that. The Trib has endorsed only GOPers for POTUS since sometime back in the late 1800s. Truly a remarkable achievement.

-- and Chicago is hardly a right-wing bastion of the neocon cuckoo-for-cocoa-puffs crowd.

No, that bastion would be located at the University of Chicago.

egbert: "Abandoning it now, or micromanaging it with Pelosi at the helm would undercut our effots and leave the President without room for manovure."

(Tsk, tsk, tsk) egbert, egbert, egbert, my poor and misguided tertiary-treated effluent-for-brains friend -- this president has heretofore been given far too much room for maneuver, and in his blundering has managed to drive our military right down a Middle East cul-de-sac called the Tigris-Euphrates River Valley.

Therefore, a little micro-managing by Congress might not be such a bad thing.

Apollo 13 on March 12, 2007 at 9:05 PM:

Sorry I missed the Frontline series, Old Hat. Sounds like worth seeing.

It was good. And a bit sad:

Former Los Angeles Times editor John Carroll worries that without the investigative skills of newspaper reporters, an important element of news gathering may be lost. "I estimate … that 85 percent of the original reporting that's done in the United States is done by newspapers. They're the people who are going out and knocking on doors and rummaging through records and covering events and so on. And most of the other media that provide news to people are really recycling news that's gathered by newspapers."

Y'all can view the full News Wars documentary online, if you have 4-and-a-half hours to spare...

Building the infrastructure …spider at 10:29 PM

…Like I said, my file on Barack Obama is getting mighty thick…edgar at 10:31 PM

…The party establishment's embrace of Lamont began shortly before Lieberman's concession speech. Reid, Schumer and Hillary Clinton phoned in with congratulations and offers of assistance. Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) wrote a $5,000 check to the Lamont campaign and said he will pitch in as needed. Sen. Barbara Boxer (Calif.), a war opponent who campaigned with Lieberman last month, offered to return to help Lamont….

If you are going to lie, and obviously you are, make sure your lies can't be discredited so easily. Now, you look like as stupid as the rest of your Wingnutteryland comrades.

Disputo: " ... that bastion [of right wingers] would be located at the University of Chicago."

Really? I honestly didn't know that. How strange, especially for a noted scademic institution.

My former boss, the late Hawaii Congresswoman Patsy Mink, graduated from UChi's law school back in 1954, magna cum laude and No. 1 in her class, and she was about as liberal as they ever come. She always spoke very highly of the University of Chicago -- maybe because in 1954 it was one of the very few places in the country where a Japanese-American woman would even be considered for admission to law school, regardless of her academic achievement and prowess.

But that was also over 50 years ago, and as we've seen, things do change with time. Is the University of Chicago as bad as Stanford University's Hoover Institution, where it is rumored that the "PhD" in a faculty member's credentials stands for "Piled higher, Deeper"? If it is -- yikes!

...the University of Chicago.

Donald from Hawaii: I think the U of Chi reference was about Leo Strauss.

grape_crush:

Thanks for the Frontline link.

Donald from Hawaii -- the Hoover Institution consists of a number of scholars and pundits who are funded to do conservative research and write articles. It has no students and no faculty, although it is located on the campus of Stanford University.

Noah: Iraq. To be an ally of a nation that nation's government must have a monopoly of force within that country (IOW sovereignty). Iraq does not or do I need to explain this further.

Although the elected government of Iraq doesn't have a monopoly of force within the country, it does have sovereignty in the eyes of the world. That government is represented at the regional conference that's going on now. That government sends representatives to the UN.

Note also that the various insurgent groups don't represent or claim to represent any sort of national government. No other group claims to be the government of Iraq.

The reference is the school of economics - the locus of the 'Invisible Hand of the Market' cult.

Milton Friedman & Co.

'The region is a minefield of historical Pandora's boxes filled with over a thousand years worth of gripes, complaints, insults, offenses- real and imagined - and title reports written on stone, parchment, paper and computers -- none of which agree with the others, but all of which claim ownership to the same pieces of blood-soaked sand.' - Stephen Pizzo - http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/4561

“I don’t so much mind that newspapers are dying. It’s watching them commit suicide that pisses me off.� Molly Ivins

it does have sovereignty in the eyes of the world…ex-lax at 11:21 AM

Mike: The Iraqi government doesn’t have legitimacy in the eyes of Iraqis.

Yes, there are some Iraqis who don't see the government as having legitimacy, but I believe they are a small minority. The huge turnout of voters at the election tells us that most Iraqis do see the government as legitimate.

Bush has threatened to replace Nouri al-Maliki. How could he if Bush were not the head of the occupying power and the real ruler?

I hadn't seen where Bush threatened to replace al Maliki. On the contrary, all of Bush's comments about al Maliki that I heard were quite supportive. Mike, can you provide a cite?

Faux-Liberal,

"That government sends representatives to the UN."

So do other governments-in-exile. Funny thing is that the Iraqi government is in exile within that country. If we really want to help the Iraqi people and its government, then perhaps we should listen to government. Nouri Al-Maliki asked us to leave by June. I say we follow his prescription, because staying any longer won't help anyone.