L.A. Times Knew About Foley in July
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.
If I was in charge of the Times, I’d fire the editor and publisher over this. Oh, wait….
and first!
Kevin Murphy (0b2493) — 11/10/2006 @ 10:18 pmFoley, domestic spying. All stories our papers sat on. I wonder what else they’re not printing? I wonder what bill maher statement CNN is censoring.
[I suspect the LAT would have published the Foley story . . . just closer to the election. — P]
actus (10527e) — 11/11/2006 @ 7:08 amI don’t think this dog barks. The emails without the IMs wasn’t enough to trash the guy. Though I concede that if they thought they could trash him with the emails they would have.
“I wonder what else they’re not printing?”
They probably have lots of stories unfavorable to the Republican Party and Bush that they’re sitting on. If we’ve learned nothing over the last six years we’ve learned that’s the way the MSM rolls – pro Republican.
Some things just can’t be overlooked, though. Like Bush’s ANG duty in Alabama. If Bush can’t provide DNA evidence that he was in Alabama 30 years ago then the heat is self generated.
Is Pelosi really going to install an impeached federal judge as Chairman of the INTELLIGENCE Committee? Is accepting bribes for verdicts all that different from accepting bribes for trading intelligence? Next someone will tell me a guy that left a woman to drown would rise to be a top government leader. I guess there are two kinds of youthful indiscretions: the kind that leave you with fewer brain cells and the kind that leaves a woman with no brain function at all.
Sweetie (c2d52a) — 11/11/2006 @ 7:42 amAs a Florida-resident who voted Repub all the way, I believe that there was more than a little hype-traction on the part of the MSM, which ballyhooed a story which Camille Paglia said was a three-day wonder into several weeks of front-page above-the-fold Church and gay-bashing—by a collection of media hypocrites who support gay rights! Even the pedophile allegations were false, as Paglia averred.
But the final word is that the voters were angry at Republican hypocrisy and corruption on several fronts—lobbyists and earmarks and e-mails, oh my! And Iraq cinched the deal for throwing the bums out.
Hastert is no loss, but stalwarts like Hayworth and Hostettler as well as mods like Leach and Johnson will be missed.
But my neighbor who knew Foley back when he ran a restaurant says that he was mean to his own mother, and hence probably a bad egg [!?!] from the start!
daveinboca (b70090) — 11/11/2006 @ 10:37 amSo, he’s saying he was used. He went to the papers and the papers wouldn’t publish. So, he went to the bloggers and they didn’t really publish either. Well, looking back on the Foley artists, Plame’s involvement and the fact that it’s in a name; names used by govt service employees overseas – not that the intent with the host country is to irritate with a name: why hold back something that you don’t know is right? He already made the decision before the Foley scandal, Plames boss(denied), and the assasination in Jordan? The papers won’t publish, so he probably shouldn’t be overly concerned about the decision, which was easy enough to make.
My website is barking the same as before 9/11, but why should I worry? The same govt employees are still there and ignoring what was ignored last time and it’s not my job to feed the feds what they don’t want to be fed, even though the excuse – that is what’s wanted by the ‘rich’ in charge is being used again as the excuse.
Government employees get mad they have to ‘make’ or go through the ‘muck’ while employed and proceed to destory the government and their employer when they retire. They passed on 9/11 and maybe this is why; so where would you be if you bothered them? ‘Probably have your life threatened by one of their well intentioned private business friends who want to do good for the fed. This may lead to unemploymnent or death, usually in that order to make the point that ‘your screwed even if you leave.’ The other guy was still employed when he was shot, so we’ll get rid of this one and THEN kill him to make a point that we’re real serious about helping. So, I wouldn’t say : go rake the muck because they are still there and still a problem because leaving isn’t good enough.
What really is a warning from animals, except a prediction and expectation, which it is foolish to participate in because they think they are ‘psychics’ when the nature of that type of work is actually attempting to have what is predicted happen. So, gotta pass and see if they are wrong again.
Hubirs (3d0ee5) — 11/11/2006 @ 12:06 pm“[I suspect the LAT would have published the Foley story . . . just closer to the election. — P]”
I guess Patterico is auditioning for psychicchat.com. Too bad his self-vaunted powers of prognostication weren’t available in the runup to the Iraq war.
m.croche (85f703) — 11/11/2006 @ 1:39 pmMore from the Smell A Times and its sewage news service
krazy kagu (444070) — 11/11/2006 @ 8:24 pmBetter accountability that way.
actus (10527e) — 11/11/2006 @ 10:46 pm@actus:
assistant devil's advocate (e58d1a) — 11/12/2006 @ 7:25 amcnn is censoring bill maher’s statement that rnc chairman ken mehlman is gay.
of course the times delayed running the story until it was sure (and when it would do the most damage). i still think they should have delayed it a little more – dropping this bomb with about a month left before the election created an unnecessary risk that the republicans could have recovered and gotten back on message.
You act like its a bad thing.
actus (10527e) — 11/12/2006 @ 7:27 am[…] I was busy Saturday working around the house, so didn’t manage to blog anything, but I couldn’t see anything to blog anyway. No the case now, there’s a bit happened lately. That is to say, there’s plenty to do around the house, but also now plenty I’d like to blog on. Let’s start with the LA times holding onto the Foley story until it would have maximum politicial impact…. […]
Onwards… « Something should go here, maybe later. (fced9f) — 11/12/2006 @ 12:59 pm