A non-story from a blancmange of a paper. Analysis here:
But why a paper would want to give this story this treatment is beyond me. Does it sell papers? Perhaps, for a day.It turns the stomach.
But if you admire Armstrong --and tens of millions of Americans do-- the disgust at the paper for trading in discredited and already aired allegations --on the front page and at such length-- has to be significant.
Proposition: Big MSM has really lost its way, concluding that anything "secret" is in fact wrongfully hidden from public view, and that its function is to act as a conveyer belt to the front page for whatever a party or person doesn't want revealed.
Thus any celebrity with a lawsuit, or any government agency with a classified document, become targets for the "reporters" who are really just glorified Xerox machines.
The only secrets we never get to see are those concerning newspapers.
How many subscriptions have been lost at the Los Angeles Times since June 23 in response to the terrorist-assisting story on the Swift program?
And how many will be lost because of this gutter journalism concerning Armstrong?