Patterico's Pontifications


[Insert Amusing Blog Post Title Here Once Post Is Written]

Filed under: Dog Trainer — Patterico @ 3:03 pm

Ah, the professionalism and layers of editors at the Los Angeles Times.

[h/t carlitos]

36 Responses to “[Insert Amusing Blog Post Title Here Once Post Is Written]”


    Scott Jacobs (90ff96)

  2. I thought you would get a kick out of that.

    carlitos (cfbec1)

  3. When I’m not wearing boxers, I always wear Large Subhead Tag Briefs.

    Official Internet Data Office (3df6eb)

  4. [Comment inserted here]
    I used to live in San Jose, when the Murky News was owned by Knight-Ritter. (Hmm, wasn’t Steve Lopez working in San Jo before gracing the LA-DT?) They were medium awful, but they usually got the basic editing right. I attended the election night party of a former Sheriff who was running for county counsel. The Murk reporter was a bit snarky about the cheap treats, but par for the course.
    The local rag does OK with what they have. Now, if they dropped the AP feed, they might do better.
    For what it’s worth, except for legal notices, the free want-ads paper kicks the main paper’s tail for sheer number and quality of classified adverts. I suspect the daily (except Monday) has the franchise for legals and tax sales. That could keep a paper afloat for a while…

    Red County Pete (6c66b1)

  5. Lorem Ipsum, L.A. Times Staff Writer.

    Rich Fader (295108)

  6. It would appear that they’re not even trying at this point – off into the tar pits with ya.

    Dmac (49b16c)

  7. It’s all Craig Newmark’s fault! Rush Limbaugh’s fault! Everyone’s fault but ours!

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R., (86fedc)

  8. Why do we hate the poor newspapers so much?!?!?!!?


    Techie (9c008e)

  9. I don’t know if this sort of error is new to the industry. Does anyone remember “Mush From The Wimp” (a headline over a March 15, 1980 Boston Globe editorial on a “sober speech” by Jimmy Carter)?

    DWPittelli (2de73b)

  10. Kind of reminds me of an email ad I got from JetBlue a few months back that addressed me as “Dear Mr. Soandso.” I probably wouldn’t have noticed if they hadn’t followed up with an email apologizing for the error.

    Xrlq (62cad4)

  11. Then there is the professionalism of our Secretary of State.

    They sort of go together. On being shown the cloak on which a miraculous image of the Virgin Mary appeared in the 16th century, Secretary Clinton asked “Who painted it ?”

    Another example of reversing the cowboy diplomacy of Bush.

    Mike K (2cf494)

  12. [Wry, sardonic comment on the decline of journalism.]

    Karl (3bf5f8)

  13. [Raucous mockery of public displays of gross incompetence by our purported “betters”.]

    [Followed by hideous, brain-melting pun.]

    PCachu (e072b7)

  14. What content can be found in the paper may have originated elsewhere:

    Trained Dog (ec7513)

  15. Well that was not the worst from the LAT today.

    Did any of you see the headline online today? “4 Oakland officers remembered amid pageantry…”

    Now “pageantry” is a very interesting word. Look it up here:

    A spectical? A mere show? An empty display???


    Incompetents, one and all.

    Mike H. (68adb3)

  16. Frankly, you’re in no position to be laughing at anybody else, Patterico. When I saw this story over at the Washington Post this evening, my first thought was of you and it was something along the lines of “Hey, I wonder if that idiot still has a blog.”

    Detainee’s Harsh Treatment Foiled No Plots

    You spent months telling anyone who would listen that torture was a valuable anti-terrorism tool and that the abuse of Abu Zubaida had saved thousands, if not millions, of lives. Imagine, just imagine, how surprised I am to find that you were blogging out your blowhole.

    Oregonian (cb1342)

  17. Oregonian said:


    What’s the point anymore?

    Ag80 (d205da)

  18. No officials on the record, except for Kirikiaou, who was a source for Jane Mayer, nothing from
    Keith Martinez, who the NY Times outed, no communications with Gerald Posner, who provided
    some of the particular details of Saudi/Pakistani collaboration with AQ. This is the worst piece on terrorism, ever.

    narciso (4e0dda)

  19. That sounded like blah/AF et al.

    JD (42a8c3)

  20. [Abu Zubaida’s harsh treatment foiled no plots his lawyer tells Washington Post stenographers. Stenographers dutifully reprint lawyer’s defense brief.]

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  21. [Abu Zubaida’s harsh treatment foiled no plots, he is a brain damaged Palestinian lackey, his defense lawyer tells Washington Post stenographers who dutifully reprint claims, rather than usual nonsense about innocent shepherds or religious students sold into bondage for bounties]

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  22. Maybe they should not have destroyed the typesetters’ union, after all. Not that there was not fault on both sides. But no dipwiddle computer will ever replace a human being.

    [nk drunkblogging]

    nk (c90ef8)

  23. Yeah, definitely blah – like.

    Dmac (49b16c)

  24. These CIA expose’ stories are great since all the information that might refute them is secret. I could write that story sitting in my family room and nobody would know the difference.

    Mike K (2cf494)

  25. Hey, Oregon. It’s already refuted.

    In fact, what Abu Zubaydah disclosed to the CIA during this period was that the fact that KSM was the mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks and that his code name was “Muktar” – something Zubaydah thought we already knew, but in fact we did not. Intelligence officials had been trying for months to figure out who “Muktar” was. This information provided by Zubaydah was a critical piece of the puzzle that allowed them to pursue and eventually capture KSM. This fact, in and of itself, discredits the premise of the Post story – to suggest that the capture of KSM was not information that “foiled plots” to attack America is absurd on the face of it.

    Well, at least it fooled a few dopes for a while.

    Mike K (2cf494)

  26. ____________________________________

    When I saw this story over at the Washington Post this evening, my first thought was of you

    Oh, because the situation, in fact, was full of complexity that requires careful discernment? The military, after all, was dealing with captured wild-eyed fanatics, if not out-and-out kooks.

    Also, because in any group of people there will be a variety of agendas, both ideological and tactical (aka office politics)? For instance, right here in Patterico’s forum, you or other contrarians, often always of the left, are a part of the bunch. More specifically, I’m sure a variety of employees in the Defense Department and the CIA have the type of judgment that’s flaky and soft-headed enough they likely even voted for the I-love-William-Ayers, I-love-goddamn-America-Jeremiah-Wright guy now in the Oval Office (see below).

    Because the article you cite contains the following passage?:

    Some U.S. officials remain steadfast in their conclusion that Abu Zubaida possessed, and gave up, plenty of useful information about al-Qaeda.

    “It’s simply wrong to suggest that Abu Zubaida wasn’t intimately involved with al-Qaeda,” said a U.S. counterterrorism official, speaking on the condition of anonymity because much about Abu Zubaida remains classified. “He was one of the terrorist organization’s key facilitators, offered new insights into how the organization operated, provided critical information on senior al-Qaeda figures . . . and identified hundreds of al-Qaeda members. How anyone can minimize that information — some of the best we had at the time on al-Qaeda — is beyond me.”

    NPR, March 2008:

    Meanwhile, the Obama campaign sent the media its own list of retired senior military officials who believe that Sen. Obama is ready to be the boss on day one. Many of them had appeared with him at an event in Chicago Wednesday. That list includes Brigadier General Larry Gillespie, Major General Scott Gration, Admiral Don Guter, Brigadier General David “Dave” McGinnis, Brigadier General David “Dave” McGinnis, General Merrill “Tony” McPeak, Admiral John B. Nathman, Major General Hugh Robinson, Brigadier General James Smith, Admiral Robert “Willie” Williamson, and Major General Ralph Wooten.

    Mark (411533)

  27. Ah, the professionalism and layers of editors at the Los Angeles Times.

    I’m sure office morale in that company isn’t exactly too good right now, and that combined with all the distractions and turmoil due to declared bankruptcies (ie, the employer, the Tribune Co) and ensuing terminations of workers must be leaving remaining employees rather ragged and tired, and probably prone to disorganization too.

    Mark (411533)

  28. Another ginormous clue stories like the Oregonian linked are largely bogus is the use of phrase such as:

    the techniques constituted torture

    Translation – The techniques did not meet accepted definitions of torture in international conventions, but when we pile them all up together and look at them as if they happened all at once or something, to any reasonable person they sound like something that they wouldn’t like to have done to themselves so of course the techniques constitute torture even if they don’t meet the international definitions of torture, there so close it doesn’t matter, or something.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  29. Comment by daleyrocks — 3/29/2009 @ 10:49 am

    Well-said and totally true.

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  30. Actually, I’d put up with copy or computer format errors as long as the LAT corrected their factual errors.

    Apogee (f4320c)

  31. But we know that won’t happen.

    Apogee (f4320c)

  32. daleyrocks #29 – I particularly liked “None of that was accurate, the new evidence showed. “

    Read all about it !

    “Old evidence thrown out ! Freshly-created evidence now available” said current Administration officials in an off-the-record double-spaced flyer !

    Alasdair (6b086e)

  33. Nice link SEK!

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  34. […] Posted by John Hichcock on 2009/03/30 H/T Dana Pico and SEK […]

    [New Post] « Truth Before Dishonor (054690)

Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0926 secs.