B-Man Posted February 26, 2020 Share Posted February 26, 2020 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted February 26, 2020 Share Posted February 26, 2020 1 hour ago, Gary Busey said: This is an opinion piece. The views expressed in this article are those of just the author. I guess you have no comment about the factual information that was brought up in that opinion piece? Do you also wonder why no press outlets rushed to correct the initial USA Today story? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warren Zevon Posted February 26, 2020 Share Posted February 26, 2020 48 minutes ago, GG said: I guess you have no comment about the factual information that was brought up in that opinion piece? Do you also wonder why no press outlets rushed to correct the initial USA Today story? It seems like quite the backpedal. What was wrong about the initial USA Today story that needs to be corrected? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted February 26, 2020 Share Posted February 26, 2020 24 minutes ago, Gary Busey said: It seems like quite the backpedal. What was wrong about the initial USA Today story that needs to be corrected? Read the follow up stories. It surely appears that USA Today took liberties with their interview with the judge, who also wasn't speaking on behalf of the group. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warren Zevon Posted February 26, 2020 Share Posted February 26, 2020 39 minutes ago, GG said: Read the follow up stories. It surely appears that USA Today took liberties with their interview with the judge, who also wasn't speaking on behalf of the group. So what specifically needed to be corrected from the USA Today story, in your opinion, of course? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted February 27, 2020 Share Posted February 27, 2020 18 hours ago, Gary Busey said: So what specifically needed to be corrected from the USA Today story, in your opinion, of course? How about running the text of the FJA email that's widely available, that disputes the USA Today narrative? If USA Today felt it was important to interpret Rufe's words, it wsa equally important to relay the formal FJA response. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts