[ Show ]
[ Shrink ]
Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor
of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users'
privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your
privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket
to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we
also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.
Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your
contribution is not tax-deductible.)
Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):
[ Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message ]
Date Posted: 12:48
Author: Anonymous - 16 Aug 2001
Subject: Re: LA New Times is not a "smut" magazine
In reply to:
Jade - 16 Aug 2001
's message, "LA New Times is not a "smut" magazine" on 12:47
I agree. I was going to post about this myself back when the furor about the latest article erupted. But chose not to, feeling that the rantings against the newspaper were too fanatical and foaming at the mouth and those who believe what they do will never change their mind.
But since you have posted it, I will follow up by saying that for many years I lived in LA and the reporting they do is top notch. They have won many awards for excellent journalism for their in-depth investigative reporting. The LA Times is a kid's coloring book compared to New Times LA. It's the same with any major newspaper. They only do small pieces on the news, mainly who what when and where. One doesn't have to be a journalist for that. If one wants the REAL story on anything, one waits for the New Times to do it. And they're not just in LA, they're in many cities around the country. They've all won many awards. Their website is www.newtimes.com, there one can find more information about them.
Labeling something a tabloid is the usual response of fanatics when their petty little cherished notions are debunked. I see it all the time. Everytime a newspaper publishes an article on something people disagree with, they call it a tabloid. Sorry, some people are smart enough to see through it. There are real tabloids like the Enquirer or the Mirror or whatever it's called. There's no comparison. New Times is about serious investigative reporting. Look at how they went digging when they were given a few leads about the shenanigans going on in SRF and spent months and years unearthing all the facts. We should all be grateful for that. AS an ex-member of the SRF cult I can attest that SRF was never forthcoming on the facts, the REAL facts about what goes on in their hush-hush cult. It took the New Times to bring it all out in the open where it belongs. Basically, I trust the New Times 100% and Daya Mata 0%. The New Times has no agenda, other than just investigative reporting, whereas Daya Mata's agenda and that of her clan is to hide, cover up, distract, misinform, and even spread disinformation if it suits their motive.
Like I said, labeling something a tabloid off-hand is just people's way of lashing out when their petty little small-minded erroneous notions are challenged. I know Hendrik is not very keen on SRF, so perhaps he was just calling the newspaper that because he heard others who are pro-SRF calling it that and he thought it was true. Perhaps if he knew better he wouldn't have called it that. But one thing's for certain, it's not a tabloid in the currently-accepted use of the term (sensationalistic gossip mongering like the tabloids in England or the celebrity tabloids that make up fake stories in the US, like stars giving birth to aliens etc).
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |