Dear Los Angeles Times Editor,
In a report published on July 21, 2010, the Los Angeles Times incorrectly claimed that an article that I wrote on an August 10, 2009 National Endowment for the Arts conference call was somehow “misleading” and advanced by using a “fragmentary” portion of the conference call.
The Los Angeles Times should make it clear that the White House did not react to my article until AFTER the ENTIRE transcript and audio of the conference call was released. Only after reviewing the ENTIRE transcript and audio did the White House react by conducting new training sessions and issuing a memorandum containing new conduct guidelines for grant making agencies to prevent such a call, as reported by ABC News, “from ever happening again.”
Only after the ENTIRE transcript and audio was released, not a “fragmentary” portion, did the NEA official involved in the conference call fully resign from the agency and the chairman of the NEA issue a statement admitting that some of the comments made during the conference call were “unfortunately, not appropriate.” Also after the entire audio was released, the NEA submitted to a congressional inquiry new actions that it was taking to strengthen its ethics training.
At no time has any legitimate news organization “discredited” the story, as falsely asserted in your writer’s article. He also failed to state that the audio of the conference call was not released until after the NEA lied about its involvement with, and the content of, the conference call. Releasing the audio is an act that any writer would have done if a federal agency blatantly lied about the factual content of their article.
The Los Angeles Times’ claim that Andrew Breitbart somehow perpetrated a “bogus attack” on the NEA is an inaccurate, sophomoric attempt at historical revisionism.
If the Los Angeles Times still retains journalistic integrity, it will either publish this response or issue a correction stating the documented fact that the White House reacted to the release of the ENTIRE transcript and audio of the National Endowment for the Arts conference call, and not some “fragmentary” portion as your writer would have your readership believe. The Times should also back up its claim of the story being “since-discredited” by citing one legitimate news organization that has successfully discredited the story – an impossibility given the response and reaction by both the White House and the NEA to the release of the full transcript and audio of the conference call.
Thanks for your consideration to this matter.
Sincerely,
Patrick Courrielche
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
27 Comments
I hate to be the one to mention this, but they have their narrative now. Because the tape of Sherrod was edited and the MSM used it to brand her a racist and fire then rehire her. No other big scoop is legitimate as far as they're concerned; that includes Van Jones, ACORN, NBP. I saw that one coming as soon as they found the editing angle and ran with it.
I just love how that photo of Patrick always looks like, "Harry Reid getting a whiff of the riff-raff tourists walking the halls of D.C."
Asking self absorbed, delusional scum to give up their fantasies, set the record straight, and apologize is a pipe dream. Better they be humiliated and defeated. Unrelenting public ostracism and showing an unwillingness to accept such behavior by bad actors such as this is the only way to reclaim the integrity, transparency, trust and civility so sorely needed in the public forums of news and ideas.
To my friends: Good bye… To my enemy: Rot in Hell…
Hey, where's Retracto? I miss the fuzzy guy….
GF,
Are you leaving?
Say it ain't so!
and where did the soundtrack go, remember the song?
i must admit calling the la times a journalistc enterprise is misleading in your requested retraction. how many members of the la times were members of journolist? the la times is a full time spokesman for the peoples republic of obama, and must follow strict adherence to a propagada agenda set fouth by the party leaders. so any retraction must be sent to the bureau for proper disposition, and permission to react to your request. in plain english, did you send a copy of this request to the pupetmaster at the whitehouse?
Hey Pat I hope your not holding your breath
This is a current priority of the MSM narrative. Audio and video showing lefty badness are identified as "edited," or "heavily edited," to show a "misleading" picture of the left, which then justify right-wing "lies." A classic example, are the original James O'Keefe videos clearly showing him entering the Baltimore office of ACORN in everyday business clothes. The left claims that the videos were edited to make it look like he was wearing a pimp outfit in the interviews. When Hannah and James simply confirm things that can be clearly seen in the videos, these are somehow trumpeted as the overturning of lies.
Good luck with that. If the L.A. Times was concerned with the truth, they would've asked for your side of the story.
The final reason to get the LA Times died with the passing of the LEGEND Jim Murray. I will not let his hard work be destroyed by the derelicts who have betrayed their duty to pursue the truth for its readers. FOR SOCIETY.
The traitors in that "news" division should look in the mirror as if they were looking into Jim Murray's eyes and ask themselves if they belong in that profession. Swinging on the brass poles at Fritz is far more suitable for you jackarses.
Jim Murray WAS a legend and a powerful influence growing up in LA..
I still miss him…And Jim Healy..
It was always a liberal rag but I think La Raza won it in a poker game a few months ago.
Hopefully, Harry won't have to deal wth the smell after January and will have plenty of time to spend with Rory in Searchlight.
Asking self absorbed, delusional scum to give up their fantasies, set the record straight, and apologize is a pipe dream. Better they be humiliated and defeated. Unrelenting public ostracism and showing an unwillingness to accept such behavior by bad actors such as this is the only way to reclaim the integrity, transparency, trust and civility so sorely needed in the public forums of news and ideas.
Funny, I was thinking the same thing about Breitbart & Co. "We really posted the video to show the racist audience reactions!!! See!! Really!." Not only was that not true, the racist audience reactions thing fell through as well
Please, don't hold your breath waiting for that correction. I'd really hate to see you pass out.
You stink! Well, did you vote for me? OK, I retract that statement. Say, Brother, got a dime?
No, the tape of Sherrod was not edited. A portion of the NAACP tape was provided to Andrew Breitbart, and he posted the entire portion he had. There was no editing (which implies cutting and splicing). Obviously, the full context was not there, but since the NAACP possessed the full tape they already had the full context.
Because the universe revolves around them, they generally fail to recognize that it doesn't and when they do, they couldn't care less. Some axioms to consider: Actions always speak louder than words (revealing Truth, even through lies). Here's an interesting take on another from rand.org: http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/2005/M... Here's an excerpt:
"In other words, hubris is the capital sin of pride, and thus the antithesis of two ethics that the Greeks valued highly: aidos (humble reverence for law) and sophrosyne (self-restraint, a sense of proper limits). Words and phrases like the following—overweening pride; self-glorification; arrogance; insolence; overconfidence in one’s ability and right to do whatever one wants, to the point of disdaining the cardinal virtues of life; ignoring other people’s feelings; overstepping boundaries; and impiously defying all who stand in the way—are found in descriptions of people who have hubris."
As for your enemy(ies), I don't understand what power they have over you or why you allow it. I also don't know what threats were made but here's some advice: while most people can't make any sense out of their header info, this is not a problem for most coders, hackers, administrators or those in law enforcement.
A little more advice: trust, just as respect, must be earned. Never give it blindly or freely.
?
Hey, how did it let you type just "?"? I've tried that before and it plonked my post.
Since his enemy visited my profile, I figure some of the same same chicanery must have gone last night, similar to what I witnessed a few nights ago. I'm not exactly sure what they were trying to do (get him to leave?) but they sure got MW's attention.
No, no chicanery. No contact for a week. None for the two weeks or so prior to being certain about a the identity of the impostor "KS". Just an over-the-top response to the article on my part. I won't deny the ulterior motive, and it did work. Not so hard to read between the lines in what I wrote, even for the "pretender". "Predictable", as you pointed out… The responses have of course been deleted, but I don't know when, or if it was voluntary. I hope you saw them.
Thank you for the link, I will check it later. Sixty pages is a bit much for now. Nice excerpt though, and I expect I will find a few more gems in there too…
I am "leaving". That was to be my last post, but I wanted to respond to you since you were so kind as to notice it. I am not guilty of some of the nastiness you attributed to me. There is a huge difference between me and the party in question. That one seems to have severe problems with one of the genders in particular. No, no power over me other than continued "guilt by association", and I will not suffer that. Strong circumstantial evidence leads me to believe that my having pointed out what was so obvious to you ("KS"), caused him to use his trick to spread lies about me to another member or two. I well understood the nature of his character three weeks ago or so, but by then it was too late. Trust and respect? Yeah, seems to be a weak spot with me. I think the lesson will stick this time. I'll be back, and I am curious if you will spot me. Just don't out me if you do, or I will have to start all over. Oh, and if you read my post again, the idea would probably work. There seems to be a strong aversion to (-) next to any name it goes by… X10? What if?…
Copied for re-posting if need be, since somebody likes to report comments that reflect on them unfavorably, even when they remain unnamed… Yeah, hubris…
Everyone knows not to trust liars, so why not just blow it off? It's not that big a deal. Actions speak louder than words, right? I knew you weren't messing with people and you never threatened anyone. I knew more than you did, I guess, but the real kicker is the only person who ever told me anything was him. Actions. . . . .
It's not like you're the only two who've had more than one account but the problem was taking it too far. I guess, if you have a hard time ignoring it, it's understandable that you'd want to start anew.
No, it's not a good idea to troll him. Don't worry, he wanted attention and now he's got it.
I have never denied being harsh or overly bombastic with one of my "other" accounts, and I am glad you knew I wasn't "messing with people". The one I am referring to was for a fairly specific purpose against a sometime zealot who attacked my primary account. I may have wandered here and there. Yes, he is very good at outing himself, especially when angry. I will start over because I don't care for the "visits", which seem more frequent than ever now. I will also tell current "friends" who I was (GF), so they may choose whether or not "associate" with the "new guy" (should they engage me, that is…). I simply meant "click down", not troll or reply or anything like that. Trust me, it IS an obsession. Having said that though, I agree: best to walk away and ignore it. Time and distance… What a clusterf*ck…
Thanks…
Really? You were thinking that? Or did you see something that someone else had accomplished, decided you liked it, and took it for yourself? Let me guess, your political views lean left. Hard left.
The LA Times is such a leftist rage I can not even use it to line my birds cage. He won't even s**t on it. Poor thing just gets all constipated. If I leave it in I am afraid he would just blow up!!
The NAACP had both the Full Transcript as well as the entire Video though it might not have been the same video that was shared with Andrew Briebart. IMO it would be in the best interest of Andrew to request a copy of the NAACP's video they have and compare it to that of the one he received of which he posted and commented on from the Blogger he received said video from, I also believe Andrew was not in the wrong and stood by his assertions on this story as he reported it based on the information he had at the time.
All inquiries should be directed at the WH and no where else, The WH is in the wrong 100% as they had both the Video & Transcript but they also used a 3rd element in there decision making that no one else used or "Feared" and that was the WH thought GB would run with this story either that same day or the very next day and the WH couldn't afford to have another trumped up charge coming form the WH directed at one of there own being ridiculed by FNC or GB alone either way this in the end brought about another Story line I believe FNC as well as "other MSM" should be digging into and that's the so called "Fear of FNC" that apparently BO & WH staffers have. Who would of thought that the WH would use or make Americans/MSM believe they truly feared GB and FNC over there direct firing of someone who holds racist thoughts and also practices what she believes thru out her tenure working for the Gov't and be bluntly truthful about it.
You must be logged in to post a comment.