03.27.06

Second Agendas

Posted in anthony pellicano, pellicano, los angeles times at 11:37 pm by Administrator

The Los Angeles Times started a special section all about Anthony Pellicano this past Saturday. Interestingly it all happened the same day my blog was hacked into and a day after my original post about the peculiar relaltionship between the Los Angeles Times and Pellicano was distributed to over 2,000 readers on the Internet. I’ve also heard that an especially good journalist has been recently asking questions of the LA Times that are making them very nervous about their past involvement with Pellicano. Of course this could all be odd circumstance and I’m not pointing fingers at anybody, but I am entitled to have my own opinions on the chain of events.

The Times now bills that they are giving “complete coverage” to the Pellicano investigation. Well, for complete coverage there’s still a lot lacking. Reading their article about Anita Busch today I couldn’t help but notice how this interesting sentence was slipped in that “As the racketeering investigation has widened, a big unknown is the extent to which Pellicano acted at the behest of high-powered lawyers or their clients — or on his own in a bid to impress them.” It was frankly a non-sequitter and had nothing to do with the rest of the story that they were reporting on.

So why would the LA Times have a vested interest in continuing to bring to it’s readers the concept that Pellicano acted on his own without his client’s knowledge? Is it just fair and unbiased reporting or because of a second agenda on their part? Was the Los Angeles Times one of Pellicano’s many A-list clients in Tinseltown?

Personally, I find those fascinating questions and I would like to know.

Permalink