Finally, the media is held accountable for their lax standards and willingness to accept the most sensational version of any given story. Not only that, but they issued an apology! It seems that the LA Times has issued a major apology for writing a poorly fact checked article about... the death of Tupac.
Seriously. Tupac.
A Los Angeles Times story about a brutal 1994 attack on rap superstar Tupac Shakur was partially based on documents that appear to have been fabricated, the reporter and editor responsible for the story said Wednesday.
Reporter Chuck Philips and his supervisor, Deputy Managing Editor Marc Duvoisin, issued statements of apology Wednesday afternoon. The statements came after The Times took withering criticism for the Shakur article, which appeared on latimes.com last week and two days later in the paper's Calendar section.
Those paying attention may question why while the media plays on faulty narratives based on fabrications and ignorance about the war, the economy, our endangered civil liberties, and the democratic primary, the thing that prompts a page A1 apology is an inaccurate article about a rapper? Really?
From the apology:
"In relying on documents that I now believe were fake, I failed to do my job," Philips said in a statement Wednesday. "I'm sorry."
In his statement, Duvoisin added: "We should not have let ourselves be fooled. That we were is as much my fault as Chuck's. I deeply regret that we let our readers down."
What? Misleading people about Tupac is where readers were let down? Not having all the facts about one, granted traggic, murder is the big failure of the journalistic establishment? To be fair, this guy is probably a writer for the entertainment desk, so it's most likely not his job to cover the war, the economy or issues that matter, but that the LA Times choose to run an apology about this points to misplaced priorities both at the Times and in the public.
It seems that not only does the Times think this is an important enough issue to publish a whole article about the apology, but we the public thought an poorly research article about Tupac was important enough about to seek an apology. Of all the things we could be outraged about, we chose Tupac.
I know I'm just saying this because I'm mad right now, but when this kind of thing crops up in the paper I can't help but feel like the American public is getting the media it deserves.