Contrast the Los Angeles Times' almost non-coverage of the Israel rally earlier this week with this article in today's paper, discussing rallies that haven't even happened yet. One had to wade through an almost equivalent amount of pixels to find information about an event that was three to ten times larger than this series of events, the day *after* the large rally. There was no coverage of the rally on the day that it occurred, nor was there any discussion beforehand. I am willing to bet the LAT will feature the protests this weekend, unless something really big happens in the Middle East (like Sharon dropping a nuke on Ramallah or Nablus).
Some say the New York Times is the worst in the nation; others cite the San Francisco Chronicle. I have to cast my vote with the Los Angeles Times, because it has neither the decent columnists the old grey lady sometimes runs (just its own cast of idiots) nor the lower profile of the Chronic. It's the worst of both worlds, and it's sad that it is the largest paper on the west coast. There are far better papers in San Diego and Orange County (for conservatives) and San Jose and Portland (for liberals), but they are overshadowed by the behemoth that ate LA.
posted on April 19, 2002 03:33 PM
