Comments on: Backlash Against the Charlotte Allen Anti-Atheist Piece in the LA Times: Part 4

By: Bryan D.

Bryan D. — Tue, 26 May 2009 19:07:11 +0000

I also found Jon’s rationalization for running the article to be lame. Allen’s work is far too weak for it to merit being called “hyperbole”, which is better used to describe exaggeration in the service of humor, or to otherwise indirectly drive home an important point.

There was no such subtlety nor humor to redeem such awful work. The real shame is in this editorial rep’s representing a major newspaper while pretending to advance cultural discourse while running a bigoted rant.

By: Lost Left Coaster

Lost Left Coaster — Tue, 26 May 2009 13:20:53 +0000

Yeah, I was a loyal reader earlier in the decade when I used to live in California. But it really feels like it’s gone downhill.

By: Rasna

Rasna — Tue, 26 May 2009 03:33:42 +0000

Atheists have been the subject of bigotry since the first person that used magic and BS to control the minds of others. Atheists have been put down since the dawn of time. Let the Jews cry about their being picked on but their stupidity and ignorance have ruined more atheists than the rest of the world put together. We don’t have a propaganda mill to cry to the world!!!!!!!!!!!!

By: Richard Wade

Richard Wade — Sun, 24 May 2009 03:43:08 +0000

L.A. is my town and it’s sad to see the Times continue to degenerate. I’m not going to comment over at their site any more, because doing so is beginning to be like feeding a troll. They clearly don’t give a damn about journalistic standards, they just want circulation, and whatever level of sleaze it takes is fine with them. If they print crap that offends you, write a brief, well-crafted objection and then leave it alone. Going back and forth with rationalizing knaves like Jon Healey just feeds the troll.

The best thing to do is to encourage others to not buy the paper and to not give their website more traffic. Let them go the way of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, the Rocky Mountain News, the Tucson Citizen, the San Francisco Chronicle, the Tasmanian Wolf, the Passenger Pigeon and the Dodo.

If you’ll excuse the pun, I hope the paper folds.

By: Aj

Aj — Sat, 23 May 2009 21:33:05 +0000

I really question Jon Healey’s idea of thought provoking, and it seems clear that he doesn’t care that there were falsehoods and blatant misquoting. We already knew that atheists are held to a different standard, that you don’t have to step out of the normal realm of opinion, just being an atheist will be seen as “strident” or “dickish”. Even other atheists are caught up in this stupidity, special privilege for religion and religionists. Equating PZ and Harris’s articles to Allen’s is an insult. Religious people say the most hurtful and nasty things about e.g. homosexuals cause disaster, atheists are subhuman, and HIV ravaged places shouldn’t use condoms, but they never get the reaction they deserve, the reaction an atheist would get if saying equal batty shit.

By: Ron in Houston

Ron in Houston — Sat, 23 May 2009 19:14:40 +0000

Ultimately the name of the game is to survive in the newspaper business and this means driving readership.

I guess in a way we’re a player in the game. It’s a fine line. When are you fighting a legitimate fight and when are you just an unwitting player in their desire to gain readership?

They’ve certainly gotten a lot out of one column.

By: Ben

Ben — Sat, 23 May 2009 17:20:10 +0000

Couldn’t agree more! There was a time when LAT actually pulled herself out of the tabloid muck and established a reputation as a respectable (and respected!) news source. As of late, the only reason to buy it is for the crossword puzzle.

By: Nick

Nick — Sat, 23 May 2009 15:34:43 +0000

I think Hemant’s original points about this article still stand. If this had been a similar “hyperbolic” rant on Jews, Christians or Muslims, groups would have been coming out of the woodwork demanding retractions and apologies.

By the way, “hyperbole” is a cover word for “Yeah, you might think she was over the line, but we’re not going to apologize. So, suck it.”

By: H

Sat, 23 May 2009 15:09:24 +0000

I stand by what I wrote before. If you replaced the word “atheist” with the word “Jew” in her piece, there would’ve been an uproar on a national level.

Or women, blacks, Christians , Muslims….

Free speech is a very selective idea.

By: dfledermaus

dfledermaus — Sat, 23 May 2009 14:46:54 +0000

The Allen piece should never have been published and the LA Times Op-Ed team should just grow some balls and apologize for their mistake.

It wasn’t a mistake from a market point of view. For almost no investment, they reaped a lot of publicity and hits for their web page. All it cost them was a little journalistic integrity.