“My Mistake Was That I Trusted a Respected Newspaper . . .”
An L.A. Times contributor is upset at the paper for feeding him inaccurate information:
My mistake was that I trusted a respected newspaper; I should have checked the facts.
. . . .
Again, I am so sorry that I was unwittingly involved in misrepresenting your organisation. I am upset with the Los Angeles Times for putting me in this position, and they have refused to admit their error in public, which is disappointing.
Read more about it at L.A. Observed.
Bwahahahaha! I feel bad for the guy, but what kind of credulous maroon would rely on the reporting of the L.A. Times? I wouldn’t trust them for the show time of a movie.
Hosers.
Dan Collins (061a15) — 8/19/2006 @ 4:24 pmEverytime you think they can’t get any more sleazy. . .
JVW (d667c9) — 8/19/2006 @ 5:07 pmRespected by whom?
Chris from Victoria, BC (9824e6) — 8/19/2006 @ 5:48 pmMindless Speculation:
Since the LA Times editors have to know by now they can’t get away with this sort of crooked journalism any more, what possible reason could they have for attempting such a transparent and obviously detectable scam?
Could it possibly be just part of a dirty little plan to destroy the paper’s reputation and run it into the ground so the local boys can swoop in and pick it up for peanuts once the Chicago Tribune Company realizes their investment is headed south?
Black Jack (5e727f) — 8/19/2006 @ 6:06 pmPeople who don’t know any better. 😉
Pablo (08e1e8) — 8/20/2006 @ 2:27 amHank Dagny, one of my blogging friends posted:
Our country’s alleged newspaper of record (The New York Times) has been reduced to a treasonous liberal-socialist propaganda arm of the Democratic Party, and a complete joke to people wanting actual, factual and honest information of what is actually happening in the world.
I actually defended The New York Times and my own choice, The Philadelphia Inquirer, as actually doing a good job of presenting the news accurately, but having an editorial bias in selecting which stories to cover, and how to present them. Our esteemed host has noted that the NYT has done a decent job in differentiating the coverage of the NYT and the LAT concerning the recent court decision holding the NSA program unconstitutional.
What our host has documented above is an indication of a mistake by The Los Angeles Times. If, now that their attention has been called to it, they fail to be aggressive in making the correction, and giving Mr Slater ample opportunity to address the error, it will then become unforgivable bias.
Dana (1d5902) — 8/20/2006 @ 4:20 amLike this other instance of unforgivable bias from last week, you mean?
It sure would be nice to live in a world where “you’ll get the page one correction the story deserves, since the LA Times is a fine institution, seeking to uphold the common journalistic virtues of patriotism, good sense, truthfulness and objectivity.” But it isn’t and we don’t.
MTf (bbe3a8) — 8/20/2006 @ 9:25 amTell me there is no irony here, but as I neared the end of MTfs’ comment a cricket started chirping, I swear that is the truth.
Boss429 (c39aeb) — 8/20/2006 @ 10:45 amAnd remember the SMELL A TIMES sypatghisis with 70s revoltionary terrorist like SRA JANE OLSON this liberal rag isnt worth reading
krazy kagu (f63577) — 8/20/2006 @ 12:24 pmThere does not seem to be a newspaper that escapes this editorial malfeasance. The venerable Wall Street Journal has a laughable opinion piece penned by a lawyer for Dow Jones which states, in part, that “…the First Amendment … tasks the press with ferreting out information that the government wants to keep secret.”
Whoa! To be sure that I was not hallucinating, I pulled out my pocket Constitution and re-read the First Amendment. My version reads:
.
Strangely enough, there is no reference here to the press ferreting out government secrets and publishing them. There is no reference to the press ferreting out my secrets and publishing them…or – for that matter – anyone else’s..
moneyrunner (0f8378) — 8/20/2006 @ 1:54 pmIt’s only an error if it is unintentional. The fact that the LA Times has refused to publicly acknowledge the error seems to support the conclusion that they don’t believe they made a mistake – they intended to say what they said. That makes it lying.
Steve G. (feb53c) — 8/21/2006 @ 2:43 am[…] Remember that guy I told you about who said: My mistake was that I trusted a respected newspaper; I should have checked the facts. […]
Patterico’s Pontifications » Making Corrections as Prominent as the Original Error — What a Concept! (421107) — 9/1/2006 @ 8:52 pmLet it be known that Hank Dagny is a liar and a fake. He can’t stand anyone smart enough to kick his butt in a fair debate. In fact, he won’t even let you have a fair debate.
Hank will only debate you on his website, and when you start to show how foolish Hank’s arguments are, he starts deleting your comments and kicking you off his system.
Then he claims you left the debate because you couldn’t stand up to him.
Twice now, over several years, I’ve answered his call to debate him, and twice now he or his cronies have censored my messages by deleting them outright.
And yet he has the gall to claim I left the debate.
Hank is a liar who doesn’t have the guts to stand up like a man and debate without censorship. But don’t take my word for it: look for any posts by me, Elroy, since he started deleting my posts in mid July. You won’t find any because he deletes them rather than debate me man to man.
Try it out for yourself. Make enough good arguments and see if he doesn’t start deleting you too. Who knows how many people he’s deleted and then claimed victory since they don’t post anymore (or can’t post anymore, as the case may be).
He’s a chicken who likes to crow but can’t stand true debate or discussion.
Enjoy,
Elroy
Elroy (5d1424) — 8/14/2007 @ 6:57 pm