October 16, 2003Posted at 3:00 PM, Pacific
The story behind the Times' story this morning is quite odd. In the Richard T. Cooper piece on the Times' front page it is stated that "Audio and videotapes of Boykin's appearances before religious groups over the last two years were obtained exclusively by NBC News, which reported on them Wednesday night on the 'Nightly News with Tom Brokaw.'" This is clearly intended to convey the idea that the story is derivitive of the NBC reporting.
An MSNBC story on the General tells the story differently:"NBC News military analyst Bill Arkin, who's been investigating Boykin for the Los Angeles Times, says the general casts the war on terror as a religious war."
I interviewed Arkin today and discovered that he developed the story on his own initiative as a columnist for the Times, and he decided with the full knowledge and approval of editors at the Los Angeles Times to provide NBC News with the story so that NBC could run the story before the paper ran Arkin's op-ed and the front-page story. He stated that the idea was to get the story some pop by using the audio and video.
The Los Angeles Times thus gave away a scoop on a story that ended up on its front page. Why would it do that? It may have a precedent in the world of journalism, but to me it stinks. Didn't the Times engage in manipulation of the news to increase its impact on the audience? Or did the paper need cover for the story and gave it to NBC in order to generate that cover:
Arkin: "It was all coordinated, and I think that NBC's contribution was really its ability to showcase the video and audio of General Boykin which I think is much more powerful than anything I could put into words on paper."
Hewitt: "So the Los Angeles Times agreed to let NBC go first?"
Arkin: "Yes."
Arkin went on to tell me that when he began to investigate Boykin, a source within the Pentagon tipped him to the General's religious beliefs. He would not disclose whether the source was a civilian or military.I asked Arkin about the line that appears in his story: "Boykin is also in a senior Pentagon policymaking position, and its a serious mistake to allow a man who believes in a Christian 'jihad' to hold such a job."
Arkin admits in my interview that Boykin never used the word jihad, even though it appears in quotes in his article. Arkin states it is a characterization. Right. In quotes.
Now the key questions involve the transcripts of the talks General Boykin gave. I don't trust Arkin, The Times, or NBC to have accurately portrayed tyhe General's remarks. Arkin has agreed to make them available to me and I have sent him an e-mail with the request. The Times and NBC have an obligation to obtain and publish the complete transcripts. The Times must also publish a correction on the use of the word "jihad" in quotes. Arkin's next editor should be warned as well.
Senator Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island has expressed alarm at the reports of Boykin's comments, saying that if the reports are "accurate, to me it's deplorable." You can express support for General Boykin to Senator Chafee via the Congressional switchboard at 202-225-3121.
Christianity is foreign and terrifying to the lockstep lib-dems in the Times newsroom. That makes it the subject of today's Two Minutes' Hate. Boykin is just today's manifestation of Emmanuel Goldstein.
Boykin might be hated in the LA Times newsroom, but if that bothers him, all he has to do is bear in mind that Gray Davis is loved there, and Schwarzenegger, Bush, the Pope, and, oh yeah, that Jesus guy, are the folks the Times editorialists and reporters hate.
Hmmm... what was the name of that other hateful dude, you know, the one who was always fighting against the Jesus guy... ? Serpents, temptation, something like that. If only I didn't go to public schools and state universities I bet I'd know that dude's name. Think he's running the LA Times?
d.o.l.
Criminal Number 18F