[ 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: 12:51
Author: Autonomous - 16 Aug 2001
Subject: Re: LA New Times is not a "smut" magazine
In reply to:
Hendrik - 16 Aug 2001
's message, "Re: LA New Times is not a "smut" magazine" on 12:50
Much as some people despise investigative journalism, it is a cornerstone of an open society. Dictatorships, communism, fascism, etc thrive on secrecy. Not so in an open society. I do not care for a lot of what's printed in those papers, since I couldn't care less about most people's lives. But one has to admit that when they do an excellent piece on something one does care about, it does a lot of good, such as the SRF pieces have done for me. And consider that all those other pieces that we do not care about someone else does.
SRF fanatics may not care, they will defend SRF no matter what. But consider those of us who do like to know the truth. We would never have found out half of the illicit stuff that goes on at SRF had it not been for the New Times. Was Daya Mata going to tell us? Hahahahahahaha. She can't even muster the honesty to accept that for thirty years she has lived in Sierra Madre, and commutes to Mount Washington (in a pink cadillac, LOL).
I know a lot of Europeans have a hard time understanding this. I can sympathize with them. Their societies are not as open as the US. I respect them, I just wouldn't want to live there. I love travelling in Europe, but I like the openness in the U.S. better. Secrecy and "burying the bodies" is not for me.
We don't have to care for 100% of what the New Times publishes. But I'm thankful it's there, it serves it's purpose, and quite well, in an OPEN society.
The "serious" newspapers never tell the real story. They only report "facts": who supposedly did what, at what supposed hour, to which supposed person, and supposedly where? But if you want to know the real truth, the real motivations for the actions of politicians, governments, public officials, cults, religious figures, etc, then you HAVE to turn to papers like the New Times because the regular dailies just don't tell you.
I'm not saying the New Times and papers like it (or their TV counterparts likes 60 Minutes, 20/20, 48 Hours) are for everyone. A lot of people don't care for the truth. They prefer a lie that's easy to live with than the truth. But in a democratic, open society such as the U.S. a lot of people do care for the truth. I'm one of them. Give me the hard truth over an easy to swallow lie any day.
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |