Los Angeles Times: A Comedy in Three Parts

Part I.  The Los Angeles Times publishes an article criticizing my research of the David Motari video: 

It was a despicable and even shameful act, but the reaction was no better. Before any of the facts were established -- the Marine's identity, for instance, or whether the video was some kind of hoax -- the cyber mob had its torches lighted, and the auto-da-fé had begun. Barely a day after the video surfaced, a Marine's reputation was in tatters, his life threatened and his family terrorized.

Part 2.  The Los Angeles Times publishes an article accusing Sean "Puff Daddy" Combs of being involved in Tupac Shakur's 1994 assault:

In 1994, Tupac Shakur was ambushed, beaten and shot at the Quad Recording Studios in New York. He insisted that friends of Sean 'Diddy' Combs were behind it. New information supports him.

Part 3.  The Los Angeles Times never seemed to establish any facts before publishing its Tupac story.

Epilogue.  David Motari was indeed the Marine depicted in the video.  His own sister confirmed it.  But Puff Daddy had nothing to do with Tupac's assault.   The world wonders: Who should be lecturing whom?

Comments

[slimandslam]

In other words, anyone who was right once can claim to be superior to anyone who was wrong once.

You would have eviscerated that type of sloppy thinking back in your law days.

[Mike Belgrove]

One of the other writers on Highbrid Nation did a story on Pac and the craziness surrounding that shooting and I wondered what other were saying about this. It seems to me that this is something the news media refuses to let go. Everyone wants to be the one who solves the crime. In reality what are the chances of us solving a 15 year old crime? And in the end does it matter? That shooting did not lead to Pac's death. He recovered from that shooting. So what's the fuss about?