Is The LA Times PRO ABORTION? You Figure It Out

[Walter]

It is the stated policy of the totally biased LA Times to prohibit the use of the term "Pro Life" because it suggests that "Anti Abortionists" have a legitimate point of view. The LA Times does not want to offent the "Pro Choice" crowd.

Example:

In a review of an opera, the critic used the words "pro life" to describe the emotion of the opera. The editors, without consulting the critic, changed the phrase to "anti-abortion.":

L. A. Times, Feb. 24, 2004

Richard Strauss' epic opera "Die Frau Ohne Schatten" (The Woman Without a Shadow) is an incomparably glorious and goofy anti-abortion paean that has not been taken up by any political group I know of. It's hard to imagine as evidence for a Supreme Court case five little fishes who fly into a frying pan, the flames gleefully leaping up to greet them, the oil merrily bubbling to cook them, while their pathetic small voices wail in the background.

Even their later correction failed to use the words "pro life."

FOR THE RECORD:
A correction in Wednesday's (02/25) paper about the review of Los Angeles Opera's "Die Frau Ohne Schatten" incorrectly implied that it was the reviewer who characterized the work as "anti-abortion" in Tuesday's (02/24) Calendar. As the correction should have made clear, the lead paragraph submitted by the reviewer was incorrectly changed to include the term "anti-abortion." There is no issue of abortion in the opera, which extols procreation.

In reply to a later letter to the editor the Times said they have no political agenda.

[remedios]

Anti-abortionists don't have a legitimate point of view. But that's for the abortion threads.

[Walter]

Guest-remedios said:

Anti-abortionists don't have a legitimate point of view. But that's for the abortion threads.

Right, but this PC nonsense by the LA Times is pure nonsense.

A reviewer is suggesting that an opera is a celebration of life, and the LA Times changes "Pro Life" to "Anti-Abortion" so not to offend the "Pro Choice" crowd.

That, to me, is plain idiocy and a demonstration of the left bias of the LA Times.

[remedios]

To me, it simply demonstrates bad editing. Their "bias" is not in dispute, except that I see absolutely no reason why a private organization can't have whatever "bias" it wants. As though FoxNews has none. Pffft.

[LucusHam]

The LA Times has been pushing its own agenda for years.