Add the L.A. Times to the list of media organizations that knew about the Foley e-mails well in advance. The paper sneaks this little revelation inside today’s portrait of Lane Hudson, who broke the news about Foley:
Hudson, who will not say where he got the e-mails, shared them with the Los Angeles Times in July. He posted them anonymously in September, he said, frustrated that the paper was still conducting research and had not published an article.
Many of us remember the last time that the L.A. Times had explosive information about a campaign, and worked up the story for weeks and weeks and weeks, dropping it on voters at the last second before the election.
I wonder when The Times would have gotten around to completing its story, if Hudson hadn’t gotten impatient.
UPDATE: Allah points out something else that I’d meant to comment on: the paper’s lede sentence, which shills for Hudson in a transparently ridiculous way, by uncritically accepting a ludicrous assertion of his without any questioning whatsoever:
Lane Hudson had no idea he would bring down a congressman when he sat in his living room and turned on his laptop one Sunday morning nearly seven weeks ago.
Yes. He had no idea. That’s why he had given the e-mails to the L.A. Times two months earlier. Because he had no idea they’d bring Foley down.
The next time you hear about journalists’ vaunted “bullshit detectors,” remember this line.
Actually, I think the reporter probably detected the bullshit. But the bullshit made a better story than just saying the guy was acting as a Democrat operative.