To the editor: This paper should not be liberal, conservative or moderate. A newspaper such as the L.A. Times should have only one goal: accurate and error-free in both reporting and expressing opinions. When a politician or other makes inaccurate statements, it is the duty of a credible newspaper to report the inaccuracies. “Inaccuracies” might or might not be lies. It depends on the intent. Many today are not only uninformed, but tragically misinformed.
Roy Fassel, Los Angeles
..
To the editor: I have digital subscriptions to three major-city newspapers, one of which is on the East Coast. I do not need additional opinion pieces, and I certainly don’t need the L.A. Times to tell me if the writing is conservative or liberal. What I do need from the Times is for it to become the undisputed leader in covering the United States west of the Rockies. That is the gap I needed filled.
An excellent example is Sunday’s lead story on how Mammoth Lakes is dependent on immigrant labor. Expand on that. Are other high-end ski resorts in the Sierra Nevada and Rockies similarly dependent? What other Western businesses depend on this type of labor? Ranchers? Loggers? Educate me about the wider region that has been my home for nearly 70 years, and that is how you will make a dent in getting California subscriptions north of Santa Barbara. Don’t look to the New York Times. Give us something it doesn’t.
Diane Scholfield, Vista
..
To the editor: The interview with the Los Angeles Times owner was disturbing. News is news — facts reported to the best of the reporters’ abilities. Facts are facts. A machine telling me that these facts are left or right is offensive. Who is responsible for the judgments of this machine?
Editorial opinion is opinion. I look to the Los Angeles Times to be biased toward the support of our Constitution and our democratic system, and to express this in editorial opinion. Just as facts are facts, right is right.
Santa Barbara lost the News Press, a venerable newspaper, founded even before the Los Angeles Times. The first step in its demise was the owner overruling the editorial staff.
Jim Wilson, Santa Barbara
..
To the editor: I used to get the L.A. Times and stopped due to the content before the pandemic. My wife gave me a holiday gift last year and I really enjoyed the sports and business pages. I thought in October that I would stop subscribing by the end of the year because the main news and columns were too one-sided. Every day, I could scan most columnists’ titles and turn to the next page because I already knew what they wanted to write. The owner Dr. Soon-Shiong’s decision in October not to endorse any presidential candidates was like fresh air in a dull room.
Unfortunately, the paper is in a deep blue city/state and lost some subscribers, but keeping the newspaper reporting the truth and staying neutral should be the standard for media coverage. I applaud Dr. Soon-Shiong’s decision and will continue my support and subscription as long as he is the owner.
Hua Gu, Calabasas
..
To the editor: I have been a subscriber for over 60 years and watched the steady decline of our newspaper. I just read an article about the future of the paper in an interview with Dr. Soon-Shiong, and while trying to keep an open mind, I find some of his ideas troubling.
First off, I do agree that journalism should be truthful and unbiased. How he intends to go about it is where he loses me. How do you go about judging what is left- or right-leaning … who makes that judgment, and are their own biases driving that judgment? If you have a right-leaning report, how do you account for the truth? We all know that the president-elect has been known to embellish the truth. And what about the sports page? Like much of the paper’s reporting, it gives you the information a day late.
I applaud his efforts but think he has a long way to go in making the paper what it once was.
Allan Kretchman, Woodland Hills
..
To the editor: I read with great interest James Rainey’s lengthy interview with L.A. Times publisher Patrick Soon-Shiong. I was outraged that Dr. Soon-Shiong scotched a planned editorial arguing that President-elect Trump’s Cabinet should be subject to Senate confirmation because there was no counterpoint article supporting the un-democratic process of recess appointments.
Your lead Sunday opinion blamed local air quality regulators for not doing enough to curb air pollution at L.A.’s ports. In Soon-Shiong’s new world, would this mean a side-by-side editorial calling for dirtier air? Or, an editorial decrying a rise in vehicular manslaughter with another article complaining there’s just not enough of it?
Ken Wilson, Valley Village
..
To the editor: As a liberal, I’m all in favor of the Times including more conservative opinion pieces. We learn from listening to others. And it would be wonderful if this contributes to bringing liberals and conservatives out of their echo chambers into a shared dialogue around a shared understanding of the facts, issues and tradeoffs.
But there are some concerning questions about what choices the Time will be making. Will we start seeing opinion pieces from the paranoid and fact-phobic wing of conservatism? Will news stories cease reporting the fact that there is no evidence of elections being stolen? Will assertions that climate change is real and largely man-made be labeled as liberal bias?
I wonder what similar questions conservative subscribers will raise?
Michael Snare, San Diego
