Well, of course they would. Washington Post's Howard Kurtz details how the Times gave NBC the story first to give it more 'pop', quoting from Hugh Hewitt's site:
"The Los Angeles Times thus gave away a scoop on a story that ended up on its front page. Why would it do that? It may have a precedent in the world of journalism, but to me it stinks. Didn't the Times engage in manipulation of the news to increase its impact on the audience? Or did the paper need cover for the story and gave it to NBC in order to generate that cover:
"Arkin: It was all coordinated, and I think that NBC's contribution was really its ability to showcase the video and audio of General Boykin which I think is much more powerful than anything I could put into words on paper.
"Hewitt: So the Los Angeles Times agreed to let NBC go first?
"Arkin: Yes."
This shouldn't surprise us, of course. It's a classic case of media shenanigans oft recorded on cut on the bias. We see, though, how this tempest in a teapot 'scandal' was entirely manufactured by the LA Times. I understand the Times desires buzz about any story it runs, but was their motivation in this case (they don't do this all the time, do they?) in part because of the general's (perceived by them) unsavory religious views?
No comments:
Post a Comment