This is the funniest thing I have seen in ages: a spoof of the L.A. Times called Not the L.A. Times. Go the link and click around. You will laugh heartily with virtually every press of the mouse button.
I love this:
Here are a couple more excerpts to whet your appetite. One is a fake Steve Lopez column:
Arnold and Antonio: You’re off the hook today. You too, Mahony. I’m even declaring a moratorium on the mayor’s transportation czar – you know, the guy whose Humvee I manage to mention in one out of every five columns lately.
Normally, going cold turkey on these clowns would leave me scrambling for material. But I’m not just here to hold bigwigs accountable with my inimitable blend of righteous indignation and rapier wit.
I’m also here to help homeless musicians recover from mental illness and play concerts at Disney Hall. Sure, I’m aware of the many selfless Angelenos who do far more important work in soup kitchens or with special-needs kids, but let’s face it, their stories just aren’t as sexy as a gruff-on-the-outside newspaper columnist with a heart of gold who helps a mentally ill violinist get back on his feet.
That’s why I got a book and movie deal out of it.
The second is a fake retraction:
Oops, they did it again. For the second time this year, the Los Angeles Times has retracted a story that connected hip-hop mogul Sean “Diddy” Combs to a high-profile shooting.
In April, the newspaper apologized for hinting that Combs ordered an attack on rap artist Tupac Shakur in 1994. The mea culpa was issued after TheSmokingGun.com pointed out that a key document in the article should have been spotted as a hoax.
Now, the newspaper is backtracking again, this time on its claim that Combs met with Lee Harvey Oswald two hours before President John F. Kennedy was gunned down in 1963. The Times based its story on data retrieved from Oswald’s PalmPilot.
After The Smoking Gun pointed out that PalmPilots weren’t invented until the 1990s – and that, technically speaking, Combs wasn’t alive in 1963 – the Times launched an internal investigation. Two days later, the paper retracted the article.
I’m not sure if I’m allowed to say who’s behind it, although I know. (It ain’t me. I’m not that funny.) [UPDATE: Since his name is on the bottom of the site, I guess it would have to be OK to say. It's Roy Rivenburg.]
Go to the link, click, and laugh.