Patterico reports that the LA Times is in the habit of editing Reuter's news stories so that they sound more anti-American.

Case in point, concerning the Italian journalist who was fired upon for failing to stop at a U.S. checkpoint in Iraq:

the Reuters story reported that there is definitive proof that the car was speeding towards the checkpoint - critical information that tends to justify U.S. soldiers' decision to fire on the car. But in the version appearing in the L.A. Times, editors cut out the passage reporting that proof.

In the Times defense, they did remove the Reuters scare quotes from "speeding", and newspapers sometimes do lop off the end of wire reports to make them more concise. I'm sure that the Times truncating the report right before the part that exonerated the United States was just a sloppy oversight. Right?

Of course, I don't know what their excuse is for this:

Times editors moved the word "Friday," changed the word "killing" to "slaying," and replaced the word "in" with "on," making the sentence grammatically awkward. [UPDATE: In the comments, Dafydd ab Hugh notes that the use of the word "slaying" tells you something about where L.A. Times editors are coming from.]

At least they didn't say "murdering". It's no wonder their circulation figures are in the toilet.