More Questions for the L.A. Times

Its editors claim many things unsupported by facts

Topics

Politics

You might recall, gentle reader, that I’m putting together an Open Letter to the Editorial Board of the Los Angeles Times. It’s their fault. They sent the ritual questionnaire for candidates interested in winning their endorsement. Well, I hardly expect to win their support for my gubernatorial campaign. I can report, though, that the Open Letter is unfolding. Here are three points I’ve recently added.

The Board advises us that “much as the bonds linking Americans have grown stronger over time, so too have the bonds among nations in the global economy. We believe that lowering barriers to trade and communication will lead to greater freedom and prosperity for all.” California has the greatest disparity between the rich and the poor in the United States. The bonds are tightening around the dispossessed and the super-rich are keeping them secure.

And what about the bonds among nations? Will communication lead to increasing freedom and prosperity? It might, but only if the communication is not a pack of lies. So why does the Times, for a fee, continue to distribute China Watch, a smiley-face propaganda rag of China’s increasingly authoritarian Communist Party? I’ve asked some regular columnists at the Times. No answer. Pity, since they are free to answer and they know that in China they would not be.

The Board does make a welcome distinction, noting that “On the editorial page, the newspaper sets aside its objective news-gathering role to join its readers in a dialogue about important issues of the day.” If only. Hypocrisy is a tribute that vice pays to virtue. The Board’s distinction is regularly denied in practice. Here’s a fresh example. Angelenos have just been treated to an extensive report on a group of pro-life Evangelical Christians in Holland, Michigan. They’re rethinking their anti-abortion politics. What we won’t see, though, is an in-depth report on the broadly pro-life politics of Front Porch Republic, located close by Holland, Michigan. “Porchers,” as they are called, often find inspiration in Wendell Berry and the practice of nonviolence for the whole of life.

Now we come to “The June 7 primary is a critical election for L.A.,” the editorial in today’s Times. Herein we read that Gov. Newsom, having fended off a recall, now “faces little-known challengers in June.” Even so, the governor has $25 million in his war chest. He also has a reliable establishment ally in the Times. He can count on the paper to make sure that his little-known challengers remain little-known.

So, what’s a little-known challenger to do? Get the word out, that’s what! Here’s what I’ll be telling voters in the Secretary of State’s Voter Guide:

After 43 years here, I know California well. I represent the American Solidarity Party, and advocate for solidarity, decentralism, religious liberty, and the duties of conscience—each in light of the common good. My priority is to win legal recognition of the dignity of life at every stage. Women deserve better than abortion; the dying deserve our care, not a suicide ticket. We need to appreciate the contributions of immigrants. I champion fairness in housing, schools, and the workplace, while supporting increased home ownership, a living wage, affordable childcare, and managing our natural resources responsibly. Visit us at solidarity-party.org.

Less than two months to go. I’ll be in touch.

 

Jim Hanink is an independent scholar, albeit more independent than scholarly!

From The Narthex

Shell Shock

As part of research for a separate project, I recently came across this ten-minute video…

Presentism and Missionaries

In liberal Western circles it has long been axiomatic that Christian missionaries were guilty of…

Singing the Home Town Blues

For some decades now my “home town” has been Guess Where, California. My plan is…