YOU ARE HERE: LAT HomeCollectionsOpinion


April 30, 2005
Re "Objectivity Is Highly Overrated," Commentary, April 24: Victor Navasky contradicts the late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who said we are all entitled to our opinions, but not our own facts. Navasky and historian Christopher Lasch to the contrary, information is both the foundation and byproduct of debate. Debate must start from valid facts to serve a public purpose. Debate can then focus further search for fact. Without grounding in fact, opinion is simply noise that confuses the marketplace of ideas.
July 10, 2004
Thank you, Neal Gabler for a sane, reasoned analysis of the difference between fair and so-called balanced journalism ("Moore's Ax Falls on a Derelict Media Too," Commentary, July 7). I believe there is a right-wing plot to take over so-called reporting of "news," in particular the television and radio networks and outlets, from which much of our population gets its information; witness the screaming heads of Fox News and the suppression of a program such as Ted Koppel's "Nightline" for reading the names of our children killed in Iraq.
March 26, 2014
Re “Jonah Goldberg,” Opinion, March 25 Six words in the lower right corner of the Opinion section brightened a gloomy morning: “Jonah Goldberg has the day off.” Tom Turnley Santa Ana More letters to the editor ...  
July 24, 2005
Liberalism's failure to be heard is due not to corporate ownership but to elitist views like those expressed by James D. Squires in his review of "A Matter of Opinion" by Victor S. Navasky [Book Review, July 10]. As long as liberals continue to characterize those who disagree with them with words like "moronization," blame their impotence on "the dominance of multinational corporations" (as opposed to multinational anti-democratic, anti-capitalist movements?) and believe that politicians need journals of opinion to "know what to think or say," they will continue their self-marginalization.
June 15, 1986
In response to Jack Blankley of Los Angeles (Viewers' Views, May 25), who called the "rudeness" and "bad manners" on KNBC's "The McLaughlin Group" contrived, phony and shameful, let me say that I would not have it any other way. I have been watching the series for nearly two years, and, in my opinion, what Blankley mistakes for "bad manners" is simply a lively discussion between intelligent and opinionated adults. "The McLaughlin Group" is one of the few honest political commentary programs on the air, and to call the participants' discussions "contrived" is an insult to everyone involved with the show.
June 26, 2013 | By Michael McGough
One of the most annoying habits of some of my liberal friends is their casual derogation of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. Thomas is derided not just as an extremist, which is true when you plot the legal philosophies of the justices along a spectrum, but also a clone of Antonin Scalia and an intellectual lightweight. The latter two accusations are just false. Thomas and Scalia have disagreed in significant cases, and Thomas' opinions, however idiosyncratic, are often tightly reasoned and provocative.
Los Angeles Times Articles