Question for the informed Californians: is it true the LAT has lost

[LittleApple81]

thousands of subscribers? It was mentioned by a conservative WH correspondent today during WH press briefing.

[fizzana]

1. The number I heard was about one thousand.

They lost a lot more a year ago when they were accused of being too pro-Palistinian.

No big deal.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

2. I Think the Number Cited by the LAT was About 1,000

But that was Monday, so it might have gone up since then.

DTH

[DBoon]

3. 1,000 is about right

They had an article about disgruntled Arnold supporters not liking the publicity about his "women problems". I think it was the Sunday issue (October 5). Best to go to the Times Web site and do a search.

[Snellius]

4. LAT has been one of the most profitable papers in the U.S.

It's been owned by the Chandler family for generations and it's the only major newspaper in the second largest city in the U.S. with a growing circulation of almost 1.5 million. So I don't think it has much to worry about.

[flamingyouth]

8. It's now owned by the Tribune Media Corp.

[in_cog_ni_to]

5. I think all of us

DUer's should subscribe to the LA Times. Don't you? I would love to hear a report that their subscription rate went up by thousands.

[Woochifer]

6. I don't know about "thousands"

I read that in the ensuing days after the Times published their story about the Gropinator about 1,000 subscribers called to cancel their subscriptions. I'm no fan of the recall or Arnie, but the timing of the story is just too dead on to expect everyone to believe that it was coincidental. Unfortunately, as a former L.A. City Hall intern, I've seen L.A. Times reporters (and press corps from other news organizations) sit on stories for weeks and hit the headlines when the timing would make the biggest possible impact (and the incidents that I personally witnessed were targeted at Tom Bradley, who was a liberal Democrat). So, it's not outside the rhelm of suspicion.

Just from comparing the stories that the L.A. Times runs with versus what the N.Y. Times goes with, the L.A. Times doesn't seem at all handtied with the fear that someone will call their reporting liberal biased. They don't make as overt an effort to appease right-wing critics and that's a good thing, and that's probably why those subscribers cancelled.

I also read that the S.F. Chronicle has been working on a similar story, but couldn't verify their sources in time to get it published before the election. Wouldn't surprise me if their story comes out around the time of Arnie's inauguration.

[cally]

9. If the story had come out weeks before it would

have hurt Arnie more. It could have had non-stop discussion for weeks and discussions of what harrassment means. It helped him that it came out so late.

Welcome to DU

[Capn Sunshine]

12. on the timing of the story

Many of you are aware I do commentary for various online and print media, including DU. I was contacted by LAT last August regarding sourcing their story; they were on the case then; they checked and double checked their sources and the story , as they often do, led them on a merry chase, and when it was over, it was not "sat on" "spiked" "delayed" or otherwise timed, it was just over when it was over and they went to press with it. Sure, the timing was suspect but guess why?

Gropenfurher's people were contacted for comment as all serious journalists do, they knew it was coming, so they "announced" that they expected Gray Davis to start throwing mud.

That way, they were ideally positioned to be the victim in all this.

I notice that Gropenfurher would not answer direct questions on this yesterday, despite a promise to do so only 48 hrs previously before the vote.

[diplomats]

13. I think the timing wasn't good, either

because it was so close to the election, that became just as much of an issue as the allegations themselves. E.J. Dionne made this point in his most recent column. If the story would've come out a few weeks ago, it may have more of an impact. BTW, thanks for the tip on the Chronicle story. We'll have to see what happens.

[leesa]

7. Yup, LA Times not quite fascist enough for the hateful Republican

drones. The fake christians who admire the way Arnold assaults women.

[Sequoia]

11. Fake Christians? Real Christians buddy!

Christians, not true Jesus types, hate women. Barefood and pregnant, shut up, etc. etc. read the news testament and see how that Paul felt about women. There's your answers. He was horrid before he got struck down on the road to Damasus and was horrid afterwards.

[Clete]

10. However many they have lost, it hasn't stopped them

from reporting the Arnold chronicles.

<snip>
Another Alleged Victim Comes Forward
A woman who worked on two Schwarzenegger movies says he pulled up her shirt and took a picture without her consent. He denies it.
By Carla Hall
Times Staff Writer

October 7, 2003

Prominent Democratic attorney Gloria Allred held a news conference Monday with a woman who leveled new charges of sexual harassment against gubernatorial candidate Arnold Schwarzenegger — which his campaign immediately disputed.

Rhonda Miller, who was a stand-in and stunt double for then-13-year-old actor Edward Furlong during filming of the movie "Terminator 2," read a statement alleging that in January 1991 Schwarzenegger pulled up her shirt, photographed her breasts and touched them as she yelled at him to stop and fought him off. She also said he touched her breasts again when she worked in 1994 on the movie "True Lies."<snip>

More at
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-me-women07oct07,1,325428.story

This sexual predator cannot be sworn in.