Comments on: What Else is the Los Angeles Times Lying to You About?

By: Jack McCullough

Jack McCullough — Fri, 09 Nov 2007 18:35:28 +0000

I haven’t seen the Drudge post on this, but if Drudge claims that Beauchamp signed an acknowledgement that his stories contained “`gross exaggerations and inaccurate allegations of misconduct’ by his fellow soldiers” then Drudge is lying, because the acknowledgement is nothing of the kind.

By: RIX

RIX — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 16:56:02 +0000

So is anyone really surprised? I find it hard to get outraged anymore. Bias at LAT and NYT and San Francisco Chronic et al is like watching the sun come up- it happens everyday so you become somewhat immune. It appears that most people seem to be voting with their feet. I for one do not subscribe to a paper other than WSJ.

By: Howard Veit

Howard Veit — Wed, 07 Nov 2007 14:53:41 +0000

I think we are far enough down the road of “analyzing” the New York and LA Times to grasp the fact that the papers are a vehicle for indoctrination and not one that brings facts into our lives. We must come to the conclusion that many very smart people only read what they already want to believe and that they will expel from their universe those with whom they differ. These papers are actually the catechism of the new religion, to be believed literally or you go to Hell. There is no way a really confident intelligence would read either paper if they are looking for facts.

By: Patterico

Patterico — Wed, 07 Nov 2007 14:12:46 +0000

Absolutely, Dadmanly.

And that’s why Rutten wouldn’t have phrased his column the way he did if he had seen it.

By: Dadmanly

Dadmanly — Wed, 07 Nov 2007 14:03:42 +0000

Not that I would want to defend the LA Times, but I do think it important that what Drudge initially said about the MFR was in fact, in error, and has led to this rather inane and extended “he said she said.”

Drudge did post an MFR, but it was merely the MFR of Beauchamp acknowledging receipt of the formal counseling. It was not, as originally and inaccurately reported, evidence that Beauchamp recanted his stories or conceded the facts of the Army’s investigation. That is perhaps one of the reasons Drudge pulled the documents — they did not include what he said they included, however damning.

Other documents, such as the exhibits in the AR 15-6 report, may in fact document admissions by Beauchamp that he fabricated contents of his stories, but this MFR does not constitute that evidence.

By: Banjo

Banjo — Tue, 06 Nov 2007 18:38:50 +0000

A leftist agenda runs the LATimes. End of story.

By: daveinboca

daveinboca — Tue, 06 Nov 2007 18:14:04 +0000

Hmmm…. Wonder why the circulation of the LAT Sunday Times has plummeted more than 5% over the last year? I believe the Orange County Register is a better newspaper daily and weekly.

By: Perfect Sense

Perfect Sense — Fri, 02 Nov 2007 18:40:40 +0000

Patterico,
What else does the LAT lie about? Here is a whopper I remember:
During the rise of AIDS, the LAT repeatedly lied about the locus of AIDS, denying AIDS was a Gay disease, concentrated in a few Gay ZIP codes. Instead the LAT spent years claiming AIDS was ravaging all populations groups. Their misuse of statistics to “prove” their point was appalling. Consequently, billions of federal dollars intended to prevent the disease, were misspent and tens of thousands gay men died.

By: Robin Munn

Robin Munn — Fri, 02 Nov 2007 16:54:44 +0000

Re: #5, #6, #7 -

Look at the roots of “amateur” – it’s French for “lover of”. An amateur in the highest sense is one who does what he does out of love for the task, not for remuneration.

In that sense, it would even be possible to be an “amateur” while doing something you’re getting paid for — if the money is a secondary concern.

So while there are a lot of amateurs who don’t measure up, I’m not at all surprised that the best of the “amateurs” are doing a better job than most of the “professionals”. Not all — some professionals are also amateurs in the highest sense and do their job out of a love for it — but most.

By: ManlyDad

ManlyDad — Fri, 02 Nov 2007 16:39:13 +0000

Apologies if this has been answered elsewhere. Is there a document or place “in which Beauchamp recants his stories and concedes the facts of the Army’s investigation”? Or is this the Army’s conclusion?

If it is in the investigation, does his signing the Memorandum of Record, which is really an acknowledge of receipt of the investigation, amount to an admission?