At the LA Times, Agenda Journalism Never Sleeps
Patterico has the goods: on the Times’ latest effort to create something out of nothing in the US Attorney firings non-event:
The editors of the L.A. Times know that fired U.S. Attorney Bud Cummins disputes the central premise of an article they published, about whether his dismissal was tied to a political investigation.
They know it — but their readers don’t. And they have decided to hide this fact from their readers.
The paper reported that Cummins feared there was a connection between his firing and an investigation he had conducted. Cummins has since unequivocally said that he does not fear that, and knows of no possible connection. He believes he was misquoted. Even if he wasn’t, he says, the quote did not accurately state his beliefs, as should have been clear from the context of the conversation.
No matter. The paper has decided to leave its readers in the dark.
Read the whole thing. Why anyone parts with real money to read a paper, or advertise in one, that carries out studied and deliberate deceptions such as what is described above is beyond me.
[...] This from a former Pulitzer Prize finalist? Joan. W T F? This is pure editorializing of the news. Maybe Tom can take his eyes off the LA Times long enough to pay attention to his own back yard. Doubtful. Doesn’t fit his agenda either. [...]
Pingback by Plunderbund » PeeDee Caught Shilling for GOP — March 30, 2007 @ 10:37 am
Brunner v. Bennett — Tempest in a teapot. Though I think Bennett should resign, I’m not lying awake at nights wondering if the world will end if he doesn’t.
The Blackwell stuff–sheer fantasy.
The LA Times matter: Deliberate deception and journalistic malpractice over the biggest non-scandal since PlameGate.
If you can’t make these distinctions, I don’t know what can be done.
Comment by TBlumer — March 30, 2007 @ 11:00 am
Tom, really. If you cannot read the above paragraph and simply come unglued…there really is no hope of you ever being a check on the MSM. Truly. This is sheer incompetence that is plainly partisan editorializing.
I’m not saying you don’t have a point with the LA Times stuff – you might, just saying we got stuff much closer to home to “monitorâ€.
Blackwell stuff fantasy? You wish. Saying it doesn’t make it so my friend.
Comment by Eric — March 30, 2007 @ 11:20 am
Next thing ya know, you’ll be saying 9/11 was an inside job….
I think the PD report is a poorly done job ….. about a tempest in a teapot.
Comment by TBlumer — March 30, 2007 @ 11:31 am