Whoooops! LA Times apologizes for Tupac story

$50 million?

$100 million?

How much does ZellWest get sued for by the Diddlers?

 

Chapelle did amazing work with the claims of Tupac still writing songs.

(NSFWish)

 

Ruh-roh.
That is all.

 

Remember this when the LAT bitches and moans about the next 1% budget cut.

http://www.slate.com/id/2187574/

 

What a myopic, benighted statement.

 

I get your underlying point, but has the source material you cited ever been identified? I ask because I don't know. I mean, if the LAT reporters said they saw the affadavit, and they didn't actually see the affadavit, then what were they looking at? Or did they just add the part about the affadavit for effect?

 

Here's something you won't read on Poynter, Romanesko or anywhere else. The words of noted media critic Jay-Z:

"Fuck Chuck Phillips and Bill O'Reilly,
They trya' kill hip-hop we all gon' rally."

I recall the book "LAbyrinth" being quite critical of the Times' coverage of the murder of Biggie specifically and the LAPD in general.

 

And for anyone interested, here's a L.A. gadfly site that has a bit of an obsession with the Chuckster.

 

This is not sports-related, and doesn't deal directly with the Tupac story mentioned in the headline of this thread, but this seems the best place for this addition/update on Chuck Philips.

It involves with another case of dubious reporting and questionable journalistic ethics by Philips, a news reporter who worked at the L.A. Times until being laid off earlier this year. The story is linked on L.A. Observed, and has lots of interesting links within.

Even if you have issues with Patterico's work, too, the paper should be sick about this and the reporting/ethics problems and questions it raises. Sadly, I wonder, at least a little bit, if it is.

Based on this information, Philips appears to have have relied too heavily on his ties to Anthony Pellicano, over-stepped journalistic boundaries in involving himself and his opinions in his reporting, and, in my opinion, got off way too easily by simply being laid off.

Even if he was a one-time Pulitzer Prize winner.

Especially if he was a Pulitzer Prize winner, in fact.

And, this piece doesn't discuss this, but it brings to mind the dangers that could potentially be posed by blogging/reporting in a less newsy way than is done here -- and, as is often encouraged and is very prevalent these days.

Any journalists worth their salt will have to be careful not to get caught doing less, or not enough, reporting, just because we're now blogging, and, by extension, having to work faster and more immediately, and offer opinions and personal views, all in the hope of inspiring reactions/clicks/interactivity via our items.

Give it a read. No doubt you'll find it interesting, if a bit disturbing.

http://patterico.com/2008/11/23/chuck-philipss-letters-to-a-witness-merely-suggestive-or-witness-tampering/

 

Excuse my ignorance, but what happened to Anita Busch? Was she murdered? I read a comment that said what happened to her was horrible. Is that a reference to the threat, or was she actually injured or killed? I tried to glean some info from the story (lots of links in it I don't have time to read), but it never made it clear.

 

I laughed at this line from the linked story about Tupac Shakur:

Rosemond said in a statement Wednesday that the Times article created "a potentially violent climate in the hip-hop community."

Too bad that was in a statement - he wouldn't have been able to keep a straight face if he had said it in person.

 

CB: She was threatened but not physically harmed.