In explaining their decision to publish photos of American troops posing with the bodies of alleged Taliban terrorists, despite the fact that the photos are two years old and guaranteed to inflame violence, the editors of the Los Angeles Times explained, “At the end of the day, our job is to publish information that our readers need to make informed decisions.”
Perhaps the editors would then like to explain why they continue to sit on a videotape of Barack Obama reportedly toasting former PLO Beirut spokesman and University of Chicago buddy Rashid Khalidi? Isn’t that necessary for readers to make informed decisions? I’m not sure whether the editors could provide a more glaring example of their own hypocrisy.
The Times is a Disgrace, Shame, Shame, Shame….
Because……The LA Times, like the NYT is a fully operating arm of the White House? And I say that in a totally nonpartisan way – the LAT and NYT are beholden to whomever sits in the White House, regardless.
" the LAT and NYT are beholden to whomever sits in the White House, regardless."–FALSE. Are you really saying they were beholden to GWB?
Judith Miller?
Not White House, DNC
Rubin left out the other major Los Angeles Times hypocrisy that virtually mirrors this one: the LAT refused to publish the Mohammed cartoons. So it's OK to publish images that harm the American war effort, though they will incite Muslim rioting, but it's haram to publish images of Mohammed, because they would incite Muslim rioting.
Perfect response, Michael. However, you're spitting into the wind and nothing, I repeat nothing, will ever come of this. n nI wonder, has anyone specifically asked the LAT about that in the past couple of days? I'd truly love to see their reply.