Last July, when news first surfaced that Democrat John Edwards was reportedly having an affair, an editor at the Los Angeles Times forcefully instructed the staff not to report the story "until further notified." (The Times finally got around to tepidly reporting the scandal weeks later.)
Now take a look at today's Times. A huge color photo plasters the top of the front page. The large headline is, "Another GOP Bombshell."
"Another"? An accompanying article by Mark Z. Barabak dubiously claims "several of the GOP's most touted presidential prospects have fallen away." Gee ... I would think Romney, Palin, Huckabee, Gingrich, and Jindal would be the "most touted" names. But apparently Barabak has added Sanford and John Ensign to the bunch.
Also among Barabak's assertions is, "[Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal] delivered a widely panned response to Obama's State of the Union address, ending serious talk of a White House bid."
Well, Jindal's response may have been panned by Chris Matthews, but has talk of Jindal really "ended"?
It just seems the Times is a bit too gleeful with the Sanford revelations after trying to ignore the Edwards scandal last summer.
Let's just say it's business as usual at the Los Angeles Times.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Change in Terms?
Thu, 06/25/2009 - 11:34 ET by BondPlainBondThe headline reads "Another GOP Bombshell" now.
My bad ...
Thu, 06/25/2009 - 12:30 ET by Dave PierreThanks for the catch. That was a typo on my part. I've corrected it.
Frankenlies.com: The truth about the lies of Al Franken; Al debunked ...
Dave..
Thu, 06/25/2009 - 11:49 ET by Gary HallIndeed, it's a bold effort to use the shameful personal tragedy simply as fuel to aid the daily MSM effort to attack the Republican party. The contrast to the Edwards' story has been so telling.
Now.. the national MSM is out trying to rehabilitate Edwards and Spitzer and back into the spotlight as critical leaders for the Democratic Party. Will this media wonder, out loud, if there is some risk here to the currently serioulsy corrupt Democratic party?
Hey, in looking back at your link to the past, I remember the discussion on the crowd size at Obama's Berlin speech. Using the pictures, the German TV video, and google earth, I took a stab, at the time, in estimating the crowd size. As there are street trees down each side of the blvd, and dimensions are easily obtained on google earth, this wasn't really that difficult. Ignoring the thinning out of the crowd at several areas and in using the most densly (mosh pit dense) used factors, I came up with 75,000 people. Of course, there were not that many people there.
Was interesting that only a few days later, the LA Times (which had front paged the Berlin crowd at 215,000), did a story challenging crowd estimates at a McCain event.
Size does matter.
(;~> gary
Gary
Thu, 06/25/2009 - 11:59 ET by BlondeAre you talking about crowds, or Burger King hamburgers?
Silly media.
I hope he fails, too.
Blonde
Thu, 06/25/2009 - 13:18 ET by Gary Hall..it's a mystery ... it's a mystery.
Geoffrey Rush as David Helfgott in the movie "Shine."
Gary (;~>
Democrrats
Thu, 06/25/2009 - 12:50 ET by sevenThey smear the woman. Why didn't the smear miss Argentina? They smeared Miss california USA.