LA Times response to me

[ccpup]

In response to an earlier conversation on DU about my letter to the LA Times concerning James Gerstenzang's article today in the LA Times -- referring to Chancellor Merkel's response to the Bush Shoulder Rub as "She smiled" --, I've now received (in reference to the Crooks&Liars link I sent to Mr. Gerstenzang since he admitted to only having had a brief "glimpse" of the video before writing his two word lie) this response from their Reader's Representative Jamie King.

"I've watched the video on which the reporter based the brief reference in his article. Judging by your take on Merkel's reaction, I think it's fair to say that different people are going to see different things in the video. I don't think the passage in the article was inaccurate or warrants correction. (If you've read the Times lately I hope you realize that the coverage hardly aims to "cast the president in a favorable light.")

In any case, I do appreciate your bringing this to our attention.

Jamie Gold"

Here's my response to them:

"Thank you for your response.

If that is, indeed, your take on the situation -- not to mention your stunning lack of response to Mr. Gerstenzang's admission earlier in the email thread that he only had a quick "glimpse" of the video before writing his two word lie "She smiled." -- then I have no reason whatsoever turning to the LA Times for "hard news".

I do think it's important to inform those on-line who have a sincere interest in accurate, objective journalism of the LA Times' support of admittedly lazy "how do I fact check again?" reporters and those that apologize for them. In other words, if you want to know what's happening in the World, don't look at the LA Times."

So, here I go, keeping my promise and informing y'all about the shoddy work being done at the LA Times. Has our media really gotten this lazy? (I know, I know ... dumb question)

[grasswire]

1. ya know.....

...it would be possible to "rather" the Times on this -- raise a lot of hell over Gerstenzang's slighting of the sexual harassment and gender aspect.

[ccpup]

2. Well, the emails

are continuing to go back-and-forth between me and this Rep. They're accusing me of making it a black-and-white issue and I'm patiently explaining it to them as simply my desire to be as well-informed as I possibly can be coupled with the creeping realization that the LA Times may no longer be meeting that task. If they support this reporter's two word lie "she smiled" (she did kinda smile at the end when Bush walked away) while ignoring the rather obvious surprise and displeasure that preceded it -- in an article on body language, no less! --, then how am I to trust them on anything else?

[madfloridian]

4. Delete to move to correct response.

.

[madfloridian]

3. Send them the picture with her fists clenched.

[madfloridian]

5. Or send them the pic of the grimace.

[ccpup]

6. The person sending the emails

made mention of the fact that they've received "tons of still shots (with condemnation of Bush)" -- which I thought was strange to include, but that's just me -- and still didn't feel the need to offer a correction. They consider it a dead story and my "concern" over it the ravings of a bush-hater who sees issues in black-and-white. Oh well.