The LA Times And Tupac Shakur-Just The Facts, Please

The Los Angeles Times must be following in the footsteps of Dan Rather. They ended up having to investigate one of their own stories, and then ended up apologizing for the story, but not until after The Smoking Gun blew the whole story wide open.

Now, I can't seem to find a link to the story in question, so I guess that's the end of that story. Only the real story would seem to be not the fake story given by con man Paul Sabatino, in which he accused rap impresario Sean "Diddy" Combs of instigating an assault and robbery of West Coast rapper Tupac Shakur, who was then later murdered.

No, the story here seems to be that the Times ignored all the warning signs that the story, based on forged documents-which should have been easy to spot-was an obvious scam. Why did they do it? Was the initial reporter that easily fooled? Was his editors that lax in their judgment?

The LA Times is obviously now to be considered on a par with the National Enquirer. The hell with the facts, as long as the story makes a big splash and conceivably wins a Polk or Peabody Award and raises subscription rates.

In the meantime, they also have an opportunity to put the screws to the LAPD, some officers of which the Times-by no means newcomers to this story-have long alleged was actually involved in the murder of Shakur, which resulted in the seeming retribution murder of Sean Combs protege and East Coast rapper Christopher Wallace, "Notorious B.I.G", a noted rival to Shakur who was himself accused of complicity in Shakur's murder.

Confused? That would be understandable. Both murders, which occurred a decade ago, will probably never be solved. That's because alleged newspapers like the Times are more vested in muddying up the works and creating controversy than taking the time to discover the real facts and running the risk of the truth being far more mundane than is good for their subscription rates. They may have in so doing interfered in the initial police investigation. In fact, the Times has been so muddied by it's past association with this case, some of their own staff have even been accused of complicity themselves.

I am no fan of Sean Combs. I consider him an arrogant ass, maybe a bit of a prick at that. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if he was not in some way responsible for the death of Shakur, a rapper whom in fact I liked. It wouldn't surprise me if Suge Knight, the head of the West Coast based Death Row Records, was behind the retribution (if that's what it was) murder of Wallace, another rapper whom I also liked.

What most people don't realize is that, at one time, Wallace and Shakur actually worked together. That is not to say they were bosom buddies, of course, but I wonder if this whole West Coat-East Coast rivalry thing is another example of overblown media hype, just another promotional gimmick.

True, these people are actual gangsters. Biggie Smalls was engaged in cocaine trafficking even after he started recording for Combs (who to his credit made Wallace cease when he discovered it). Shakur as well had a shady past.

But was this rivalry for real? If so, was it really that big a deal? Shit, rap was a big business in the nineties. It still is. There is plenty of room to play in that sandbox. There was plenty of room then.

Of course, somebody murdered these artists, and it was an obvious conspiracy. A reading of the details behind the murder of Wallace in particular reads like a classic case of a gangland hit.

One can theorize all day long and conceivably come close to the truth, but without verifiable proof, it is no more valid than someone writing a story or movie script "ripped from today's headlines". In the Times case, this at least was more like a rip off in the day's headlines. It's one thing to offer what may or may not be a valid theory and identify it as such. It is something else yet again to write fiction and pass it off as fact in a newspaper.

Maybe the LA Times should adopt a new header. I would suggest something along the lines of "all resemblance to any persons living or dead is coincidental."