Spreading the Blame

Why do I hate the Los Angeles Times so much? Because its profile of Stone tells us where he ate lunch while making the deals and how Michael Ovitz blessed the film, and it speaks of Stone’s brave “courage” against his critics. It does all this without giving a clear voice to those critics or addressing Stone’s morality.

Compare this Calendar article to Tom Wicker’s article in the New York Times. Wicker actually adds to our knowledge, pointing out specifically that many of Garrison’s critics are not just men who accuse him of being gay, but people intimate with the facts, doubters of the Warren Commission, people skeptical that Kennedy’s barely articulated notions of getting out of Vietnam were at the trigger of his assassination.

This point is not even addressed in Scheer’s piece. More popular conspiracy theories such as mob involvement or Fidel Castro’s participation are not even brought up. The L.A. Times, like Stone, continues to astound me with its disregard for getting to the bottom of things.

The cover of Calendar suggests that Stone is dangerous. Not nearly as much as the L.A. Times’ mentality of glossing over true examination of its subject matter.

Scheer leaves us with (paraphrasing) this thought: If the audience questions the official truth after seeing “JFK,” why blame Stone? If the audience doesn’t question Stone’s official truth, why blame the L.A. Times?

C. LANDER

Hollywood