Thursday, September 22, 2005

LA Times Editorial Page's Heartbreaking Blunder of Staggering Incompetence!

OK - it's now official. The Editorial Page of the LA Times is now officially a 'fact free zone'! Just look at today's correction:

Sugar prices:
An Aug. 28 editorial about a trade dispute between the U.S. and Mexico said that the price of sugar in the U.S. has risen at two to three times the rate in the rest of the world in the last 10 years. Both U.S. and world prices have decreased over the last decade, with world prices falling at a higher rate than U.S. prices.

Exactly how could the LA Times have 'found' a fact that the price of sugar is rising two to three times as fast in the United States than in the rest of the world - when sugar prices have been FALLING in the United States for the last ten years? I simply can not imagine what statistics they could have been looking at to have come up with that conclusion. Other than them just making stuff up just 'cause it sounds good, it almost seems impossible to get something this wrong if they had actually checked ANY sources.

Now, of course, the name of who wrote this editorial is not given. There is also no link to read the now corrected editorial. There is also no explanation how such a blunder could have happened.

And, best/worst of all, when one tries to find the offending editorial in the archives - there is not even a section to search the old editorials - only the Op-Ed page option is offered - and then when one puts in key words such as sugar prices for the entire paper - even then... the editorial is nowhere to be found.

But why am I not surprised? After all - word for word - the Editorial Page of the Los Angeles Times still has more errors than any other section of the LA Times.

Week, after week, after week, after week.


By using the less advanced search function, I found the old editorial! Or at least the part that is free. And guess what!

They DIDN'T correct the Editorial!! It's still... WRONG!

And the whole point of the piece is that we are paying BILLIONS more for sugar because of the rsising prices.

A sugar imbalance; [HOME EDITION]
Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles, Calif.: Aug 28, 2005. pg. M.4
Sugar industry, Free trade, North American Free Trade Agreement, Court decisions, Editorials -- Sugar industry
Mexico, United States, US
World Trade Organization (NAICS: 928120 )
Document types:
Current; Part M; Editorial Pages Desk
Text Word Count
Document URL:

Abstract (Document Summary)
Subsidies to the sugar industry cost U.S. taxpayers about $1.2 billion annually, and in the last 10 years the price of sugar in the United States has risen at two to three times the rate in the rest of the world, costing U.S. consumers billions more. Such protectionist policies are all the more offensive considering that the sugar cane industry employs only about 62,000 people ...


BTW - I 100% agree with the position LA Times took on this issue, and for the exact reasons they cite. But just because I agree with their conclusions does not mean I in any way will not call them on getting their facts wrong on this issue. This is not about ideology, but ... competence and trust worthiness.


Well, this correction only lasted one day on the Corrections Page - and when one visits the archieves and reads the article summary - it STILL has not been corrected! So when is a correction... not a correction?

No comments: