Please, Please Koch Brothers, BUY The Los Angeles Times!!

Yes, I want to see the eeeeevvvvviiiiilllll Koch brothers, Satan's spawn very wealthy libertarian businessmen buy the Los Angeles Times and the rest of the Chicago Tribune media empire.
If this is the effect of it all, I am all in!
I am with Allahpundit on this. If the eeeeevvvvviiiiilllll Koch brothers are that bad, then quit. If you think in a contracting job market for print journalists you will be able to get another job in just as good a newspaper for as equal a salary, good luck.
The irony is that the Newspaper Guild local really, really believes that the Times is an objective third party and just providing the facts ma'am. No really! Here is the Guild's statement:

Recently you’ve seen many petitions asking that the Koch brothers not be allowed to buy the Tribune Company’s newspapers. We understand why the Kochs breed this distrust. They are active political proponents of harsh right-wing positions. We’re also not certain that Tribune will listen to anything but money when the final decision is made.

What we do know is that great papers publish credible, trusted journalism online and on the printed page. Whoever comes to own these mastheads needs to understand that protecting newsrooms from ideological taint is no small thing. The future of American journalism depends on the ability to print truth, not opinion.
We call on Tribune to make a pledge that they’ll only sell to a buyer that will protect the objectivity of the news product by making a public commitment to doing so. The Newspaper Guild-CWA and the Communications Workers of America seek your support in this goal.

Get that next to last graph?! That they are objective?! All I can write is that I am glad I am not eating as I write this for my food would be all over the keyboard and screen. Are they fricking kidding?! Who is the Newspaper Guild to tell the company that they work for who they can sell the company to? What if the buyer, as Allahpundit notes here is George Soros? Would these douchebrains be down with that? And when did the Times become this paragon of objectivity? Was this when one-time publisher Otis Chandler decided to expose the John Birch Society and officially ending their ties to the Republican party? What?! You mean the Times used to be. . .a. . .right-wing rag?! Why yes indeed it was. So now a couple of wealthy bros can't buy a newspaper because they may damage so-called newsroom and editorial "independence".
Before Otis Chandler took over the Times in the early 1960s, the Times was pretty much an organ of the Republican party. Hard to believe I know. But when Otis took over, he wanted to change the Times' image of being in the hip pocket of the GOP. And he sure did by taking a 360 of the newspaper and it slowly but surely went far the other way. The evolution was complete after Otis ended up selling the Times-Mirror company to the Chicago Tribune. In fact and indeed, the Tribune company made it an official left-wing rag.
This recent post of mine kind of explains the Times at the national level. But it pretty much caters to the Hollyweird and West Los Angeles liberal elites. The rest of the city? Uh, not so much. And regional coverage? Abysmal.
Now, why are the Koch bros so bad?
Because they are open about their politics? As if people like the aforementioned Mr. Soros is not?
Does that mean that the Koch bros would simply make their potential publications and other media holdings just a mouthpiece for their causes?
Well, the Koch bros, David and Charles, do not strike me as two dudes that would just throw their money away. They would not buy the Times and the other Tribune holdings just because. They may want to leave their stamp on the media empire, but they want to make money at the same time.
I think what you would find is that the Times would not be in the hip pocket of the downtown Los Angeles, West Los Angeles, Hollyweird elites as they are now. There would be a balance of stories dealing with government corruption. And yes, even private corruption. The editorial page would probably show restraint rather than left or right wing bias at least for a while. After all the Koch bros would want to have their point of view out there. But again, I look for more hands off than a rebirth of Col. McCormick and his hold on, yes the Chicago Tribune. In fact, I think that the editorial page would be more libertarian than anything. It may be more like the Orange County Register in that respect.
But the thought that if the Koch bros were to buy the Los Angeles Times and a slew of staff were to leave, it would be totally awesome. A chance for many up and coming actual journalists to start at the top. What an opportunity.
It is why I support the Koch bros buying the Los Angeles Times. Because it is about time to clean house!

Another Case Of Media Bias?

I do want to be fair to my local fish-wrap, the Pasadena Star-News. Usually it does a pretty good job for a low to mid-sized daily.
But what I am about to show you, well I will let you be the judge.
This past Monday, two famous people died.
One was Annette Funicello, former Mousketeer, actress whose wholesome image made her perfect for the beach party movies of the 1960s.
The other was the former prime minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Lady Margaret Thatcher.
So, who got the front page coverage?

Why, Annette Funicello, of course.
And as you can see, the story continues inside.

So, what about Lady Thatcher?
Well, she made page seven. One can be glad it was still in the main news section, right?

Even the headline is sort of demeaning, doncha think? And look how short it is in comparison to the death of Mrs. Funicello? And yes, the Thatcher story is an AP story. But still, who had a great impact on people? Who was able to make substantive change to where they lived?
Now I want to be clear. This is no disrespect to Mrs. Funilcello. But she had been out of public view for over 20 years as the effects of Multiple Sclerosis became unbearable.
Lady Thatcher, while out of office for 23 years, still was making an impact on her nation and those that mattered.
OK, so maybe it was not a case of media bias. But I was not the only one to question the fish-wraps news judgement.
In the next day's fish-wrap, two letters to the editor questioned the judgement of the stories and their placement.
If I was the editor, I would have put Lady Thatcher's death in the box. But, I would have put Mrs. Funicello's death article to the right. Thus two people that are important in different ways would have gotten the kind of respectful coverage that both deserved.
I am going with the theory that this is a slight to Lady Thatcher on the part of the editor. Absolute bias? Probably not, but Lady Thatcher's passing is more of consequence because of the changes that she made as the first woman elected to the post of prime minister in the U. K.'s history. Mrs. Funicello did make a lot of people happy and was active in the early days of American television.
At the end of the day, this is another case of media bias.

Is Romney Right About The Mainstream Media?

Yes, that graphic above is from the Drudge Report and the accompanying link in which the presumptive GOP presidential nominee, Mitt Romney, lashes out at the Mainstream Media for in his words, "An effort by the quote vast left wing conspiracy to work together to put out their message and to attack me."
Well, I think that there is some truth to what Mr. Romney is saying.
No question that the Obamawhore/Leftywhore (one in the same) are going to ramp up every negative that they can find or, frankly make up about Mr. Romney.
There is a reason that one Hilary Rosen decided to in a most accusatory tone, assail Ann Romney, Mr. Romney's wife, for not working a day in her life. Oh sure, Miss Rosen's defenders tried to add to the remarks that what she meant is that Mrs. Romney has never held a job outside of the home.
Hey, then Miss Rosen should have been saying that all the way through.
Raising a family of five boys may not be paid work outside of the home, but it is real work nonetheless.
Note that some have begun to ask the "Mormon" questions about Mr. Romney.
Too bad same "journalists" never seem to ask Democrat Mormon, Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev) and the highest ranking elected Mormon in the United States any questions about Mormonism. And what they believe or don't believe.
Note that any failure at the time Mr. Romney was with Bain Capital will be front and center.
What the Mainstream Media will tell us is that they are just reporting and vetting the Republican nominee.
Too bad they did an epic fail when it came to some dude named Obama.
Talk about Teflon.
But Mr. Romney need not complain much. He just needs to state the obvious and move on. He knows that the Mainstream, Obamawhore/Leftywhore (once again, all in one and all the same) will come at him and hard.
Mr. Romney needs to create the narrative. He needs to focus not on the lack of real journalism and vetting of all serious presidential candidates, no matter what party. He needs to point out the failures of the Obama administration. The economy is a shambles. Unemployment is over eight percent. Deficits are the worst ever. Same with our national debt. All are unsustainable for an industrialized nation that the United States is.
But it is important for us to make note of the media and their one-sided vetting of Mitt Romney.
Mr. Romney is right. There is is and will be a vast left-wing conspiracy. And it is being led by the Mainstream Media.