Showing posts with label Journalism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Journalism. Show all posts
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
Writing tips...from the desk of Julian Ayrs!
Monday, July 28, 2008
Federal "Shield" Law...Journalistic ethics separate wheat from chaff!
Interactive newsroom a wave of the future?
In the OPINION section of the Los Angeles Times, an attorney - Scott Gant - penned an article on the issues surrounding a proposed Federal "Shield" law geared towards protecting Journalists, their work product, and subsequent sources.
Mr. Gant noted that the Bush administration opposes the measure on the grounds that it would weaken law enforcement efforts and jeopardize National Security.
Baloney!
Currently, any reporter or news organization that refuses to cough up documents and information on the heels of a subpoena, may be fined, held in contempt of court, or tossed into jail.
Mr. Gant posed an intriguing question.
Who would fall under the protection of such a Statute?
The Washington legal eagle mused that by virtue of a proliferation of - bloggers, podcasters, and a myriad of fawning news outlets on the World-Wide-Web - that lawmakers would have to take a "stand".
To date, the House has defined Journalism as:
"The gathering, preparing, collecting, photographing, recording, writing, editing, reporting or publishing of news or information that concerns local, national or international events or other matters of public interest for dissemination to the public."
Understandably, under current thinking on the "Hill", due protections would be extended to those who "practise" journalism regularly and for a "substantial portion of the person's livelihood for substantial gain".
Would those who sell "gossip" be included?
Indeed - should the shield law be limited to so-called "professionals" - or be more inclusive to reflect a broader view of Journalism in the Internet age?
From there Gant took a giant leap and boldly asserted:
"The line distinguishing professional journalists from others who disseminate information, ideas, and opinions to a wide audience has been blurred."
He summed up by concluding:
"We're all capable of being Journalists now."
On the contrary!
Documentarians, perhaps. Journalists, no.
In my view - the distinction between a Journalist and one who "documents" and/or disseminates information - is crystal clear!
Journalists check their sources, for instance. And, verify their facts. Also, they endeavour to present a level playing field where both sides of the issues may be argued so the reportage is ultimately unbiased and balanced.
To quote the Detective from the old Dragnet series:
"Just the facts, man."
Notwithstanding, it should be noted that Journalists usually attend a College or specialized "learning institution" to "be educated" about - well, let's see - silly little concepts like ethics, rules of professional conduct, and standards in Journalism.
Oh yes, there may be a fine line between Journalists and those "others", to some.
To me, it's evident after perusing a few "news bites" on the Internet this morning, just how wide the "divide" is.
I found Mr. Gant's arguments not only self-serving but laughable and naive; in essence, he was reaching!
If anything, he has a skewered slant on things.
To boldly assert that the musings of a few - who dabble in social or political commentary on a personal blog or by podcast - are to be taken as legitimate Journalistic offerings is a ludicrous assertion by any stretch of the imagination.
Sir, there is an old saying:
"Consider the source."
Fortunately, there are a handful of true journalists who still carry the "torch" - and likewise - make every bold-faced effort to shed light in dark corners in a courageous pursuit of the truth.
Gee - maybe that's why we have Awards for outstanding accomplishment in Journalism - do 'ya figure?
Yes, to honor those who exemplify the epitome of standards and ethics in Journalism.
Citizens in the land of the alleged "free" should take every precaution to preserve - what to a handful - may appear to be a lofty ideal fading into oblivion.
Henry Anatole Grunwald once said:
"Journalism can never be silent: that is its greatest virtue and its greatest fault."
In the OPINION section of the Los Angeles Times, an attorney - Scott Gant - penned an article on the issues surrounding a proposed Federal "Shield" law geared towards protecting Journalists, their work product, and subsequent sources.
Mr. Gant noted that the Bush administration opposes the measure on the grounds that it would weaken law enforcement efforts and jeopardize National Security.
Baloney!
Currently, any reporter or news organization that refuses to cough up documents and information on the heels of a subpoena, may be fined, held in contempt of court, or tossed into jail.
Mr. Gant posed an intriguing question.
Who would fall under the protection of such a Statute?
The Washington legal eagle mused that by virtue of a proliferation of - bloggers, podcasters, and a myriad of fawning news outlets on the World-Wide-Web - that lawmakers would have to take a "stand".
To date, the House has defined Journalism as:
"The gathering, preparing, collecting, photographing, recording, writing, editing, reporting or publishing of news or information that concerns local, national or international events or other matters of public interest for dissemination to the public."
Understandably, under current thinking on the "Hill", due protections would be extended to those who "practise" journalism regularly and for a "substantial portion of the person's livelihood for substantial gain".
Would those who sell "gossip" be included?
Indeed - should the shield law be limited to so-called "professionals" - or be more inclusive to reflect a broader view of Journalism in the Internet age?
From there Gant took a giant leap and boldly asserted:
"The line distinguishing professional journalists from others who disseminate information, ideas, and opinions to a wide audience has been blurred."
He summed up by concluding:
"We're all capable of being Journalists now."
On the contrary!
Documentarians, perhaps. Journalists, no.
In my view - the distinction between a Journalist and one who "documents" and/or disseminates information - is crystal clear!
Journalists check their sources, for instance. And, verify their facts. Also, they endeavour to present a level playing field where both sides of the issues may be argued so the reportage is ultimately unbiased and balanced.
To quote the Detective from the old Dragnet series:
"Just the facts, man."
Notwithstanding, it should be noted that Journalists usually attend a College or specialized "learning institution" to "be educated" about - well, let's see - silly little concepts like ethics, rules of professional conduct, and standards in Journalism.
Oh yes, there may be a fine line between Journalists and those "others", to some.
To me, it's evident after perusing a few "news bites" on the Internet this morning, just how wide the "divide" is.
I found Mr. Gant's arguments not only self-serving but laughable and naive; in essence, he was reaching!
If anything, he has a skewered slant on things.
To boldly assert that the musings of a few - who dabble in social or political commentary on a personal blog or by podcast - are to be taken as legitimate Journalistic offerings is a ludicrous assertion by any stretch of the imagination.
Sir, there is an old saying:
"Consider the source."
Fortunately, there are a handful of true journalists who still carry the "torch" - and likewise - make every bold-faced effort to shed light in dark corners in a courageous pursuit of the truth.
Gee - maybe that's why we have Awards for outstanding accomplishment in Journalism - do 'ya figure?
Yes, to honor those who exemplify the epitome of standards and ethics in Journalism.
Citizens in the land of the alleged "free" should take every precaution to preserve - what to a handful - may appear to be a lofty ideal fading into oblivion.
Henry Anatole Grunwald once said:
"Journalism can never be silent: that is its greatest virtue and its greatest fault."
Saturday, June 7, 2008
Bill Clinton...snared by Mayhill Fowler, a sniping senior! LA TIMES, shame!
The LA TIMES hailed Mayhill Flower - an over-the-hill self-proclaimed writer cum sh** disturber - as an outright "media revolution" in the morning paper.
In the tabloid-style piece, James Rainey argued that the so-called roving web "journalist" (I use the term very loosely) had a big one up on pundits and newsies like Tim Russert, Katie Couric and Larry King in recent days because she allegedly won the contest for nabbing the most provocative presidential quotes to date.
Bullsh**!
One of the quotes Mr. Rainey was referring to was an eyebrow raising comment uttered by Clinton - which she caught on video - in response to a question about the upcoming Vanity Fair article in which Todd Purdum disparaged the former president.
When you read the article - and are made privy to the machinations of Ms. Fowler leading up to the event - then it's quite obvious to any fifth-grader that the back-stabbing bottle-blond is "no journalist". In fact, she's not even a cut above an ambulance-chasing attorney, a private dick hiding outside Motels scrambling for the dicey goods on cheating husbands, or even the handful of tabloid writers who invent scintillating tidbits to titillate the nation at supermarket stands each week.
With a bit of gleeful cluck, Ms. Fowler attributed the big "scoop" to persistence, serendipity and the flouting of old rules of mainstream journalism.
Forget about the serendipity, there was nothing the least bit magical about the moment.
As to the flouting and persistence - yup - the two culminated in sleaze-ball conduct that ranks her right up there with the Nixon-era gang who "rat-fu**ed enemies of "dirty dick".
In contrast, she proudly boasts about her own slimy maneuverings.
"Of course, he had no idea I was a journalist," she chirped on the telephone to the reporter who was all ears. (I had no idea either)
"He just thought we were all average ordinary Americans who had come out to see him. And, of course, in one sense, that is what I am."
Whoa, Nellie!
You call an ambushing smut-chaser an average ordinary American?
Not content to let Clinton just twist in the wind in the aftermath she was inclined to stir up the intrigue a bit.
With dime-store-novel flair she confessed to the reporter that originally she intended to slip Bill her business card (Yeah, guess she figured he goes for older tail, too) with the hope of landing an - um - interview.
Darn it all - during a hot flash or something - she dropped the little name plate on the crowded rally floor - so what was Nancy Drew to do?
"I managed a handshake, but my mind went blank," she wistfully recalled of the moment that brought the moth close to flame.
"I missed my moment," she ruefully recalled to Rainey.
Yeah, at that juncture, she must have been just about p**ing her pants.
But, as fate would have it (Rainey himself was quick on the uptake and managed to piece the end scenario together on the fly) "...ever the ebullient retail politician, (Bill) reached out a second time."
Eureka! The Gods were smiling down on her, no doubt!
Now the female primal call for self-preservation was thrown into high gear as she scrambled for a scratch - an itty-bitty scrap of something - to snatch her back from the jaws of oblivion.
Yes - the Vanity Fair accusations that Bill dirtied his legacy by running with unsavory friends and business associates - would do the trick.
The hungry tigress leapt towards her prey.
"Mr. President, what do you think about the hatchet job somebody did on you in Vanity Fair?"
Ironic, in view of the fact she was just about to heave-ho the old axe herself into Bill's back.
When he responded with his infamous comments - "slimy, dishonest" - she videotaped it knowing full-well what she intended to do with the footage as she innocently gazed intently into his eyes.
She's a real piece of work, eh?
Ms. Fowler, sorry to burst your bubble, but -
You're supposed to be reporting the news, not creating it, fool!
No wonder celebrities, politicians and other luminaries in the public eye are wary of the media.
In sum, the premeditated efforts by scumbags like Fowler to launch an assault to assassinate character, underscore that she - and others like her - are nothing short of stalkers and slashers out for a merciless kill.
You're not a journalist, Ms. Fowler, you're a menace to the community at large.
It must be an ugly sight when you look at yourself in the mirror in the morning.
As to the LA TIMES?
Well, they should be ashamed for glorifying such disreputable unethical conduct.
No wonder the daily has lost its luster in recent days.
But, it makes a great liner for the kitty litter box.
Meow!
Bill is irresistible, after all...
Thursday, June 5, 2008
Mayhill Fowler..sniping senior snares Bill Clinton. Nasty stuff!
The LA TIMES hailed Mayhill Flower - an over-the-hill self-proclaimed writer cum sh** disturber - as an outright "media revolution" in the morning paper.
In the tabloid-style piece, James Rainey argued that the so-called roving web "journalist" (I use the term very loosely) had a big one up on pundits and newsies like Tim Russert, Katie Couric and Larry King in recent days because she allegedly won the contest for nabbing the most provocative presidential quotes to date.
Bullsh**!
One of the quotes Mr. Rainey was referring to was an eyebrow raising comment uttered by Clinton - which she caught on video - in response to a question about the upcoming Vanity Fair article in which Todd Purdum disparaged the former president.
When you read the article - and are made privy to the machinations of Ms. Fowler leading up to the event - then it's quite obvious to any fifth-grader that the back-stabbing bottle-blond is "no journalist". In fact, she's not even a cut above an ambulance-chasing attorney, a private dick hiding outside Motels scrambling for the dicey goods on cheating husbands, or even the handful of tabloid writers who invent scintillating tidbits to titillate the nation at supermarket stands each week.
With a bit of gleeful cluck, Ms. Fowler attributed the big "scoop" to persistence, serendipity and the flouting of old rules of mainstream journalism.
Forget about the serendipity, there was nothing the least bit magical about the moment.
As to the flouting and persistence - yup - the two culminated in sleaze-ball conduct that ranks her right up there with the Nixon-era gang who "rat-fu**ed enemies of "dirty dick".
In contrast, she proudly boasts about her own slimy maneuverings.
"Of course, he had no idea I was a journalist," she chirped on the telephone to the reporter who was all ears. (I had no idea either)
"He just thought we were all average ordinary Americans who had come out to see him. And, of course, in one sense, that is what I am."
Whoa, Nellie!
You call an ambushing smut-chaser an average ordinary American?
Not content to let Clinton just twist in the wind in the aftermath she was inclined to stir up the intrigue a bit.
With dime-store-novel flair she confessed to the reporter that originally she intended to slip Bill her business card (Yeah, guess she figured he goes for older tail, too) with the hope of landing an - um - interview.
Darn it all - during a hot flash or something - she dropped the little name plate on the crowded rally floor - so what was Nancy Drew to do?
"I managed a handshake, but my mind went blank," she wistfully recalled of the moment that brought the moth close to flame.
"I missed my moment," she ruefully recalled to Rainey.
Yeah, at that juncture, she must have been just about p**ing her pants.
But, as fate would have it (Rainey himself was quick on the uptake and managed to piece the end scenario together on the fly) "...ever the ebullient retail politician, (Bill) reached out a second time."
Eureka! The Gods were smiling down on her, no doubt!
Now the female primal call for self-preservation was thrown into high gear as she scrambled for a scratch - an itty-bitty scrap of something - to snatch her back from the jaws of oblivion.
Yes - the Vanity Fair accusations that Bill dirtied his legacy by running with unsavory friends and business associates - would do the trick.
The hungry tigress leapt towards her prey.
"Mr. President, what do you think about the hatchet job somebody did on you in Vanity Fair?"
Ironic, in view of the fact she was just about to heave-ho the old axe herself into Bill's back.
When he responded with his infamous comments - "slimy, dishonest" - she videotaped it knowing full-well what she intended to do with the footage as she innocently gazed intently into his eyes.
She's a real piece of work, eh?
Ms. Fowler, sorry to burst your bubble, but -
You're supposed to be reporting the news, not creating it, fool!
No wonder celebrities, politicians and other luminaries in the public eye are wary of the media.
In sum, the premeditated efforts by scumbags like Fowler to launch an assault to assassinate character, underscore that she - and others like her - are nothing short of stalkers and slashers out for a merciless kill.
You're not a journalist, Ms. Fowler, you're a menace to the community at large.
It must be an ugly sight when you look at yourself in the mirror in the morning.
As to the LA TIMES?
Well, they should be ashamed for glorifying such disreputable unethical conduct.
No wonder the daily has lost its luster in recent days.
But, it makes a great liner for the kitty litter box.
Meow!
Bill is irresistible, after all...
Monday, March 17, 2008
Las Vegas City Life...Andrew Kiraly, Managing Editor, publishes false statements, lacks Journalistic Ethics!
It must be the desert sun, or maybe there's something in the water, that makes journalists in Las Vegas so stupid...
A case in point, Andrew Kiraly - Managing Editor - of Las Vegas CityLife.
A few weeks ago, Mr. Kiraly contacted me to request an interview about a disturbing incident I reported on my blog in January, which "went down" at the Golden Nugget Hotel.
In a nutshell, I was walking through the rows of one-armed bandits one afternoon in the Casino, when a female security guard ambushed me, and demanded my I.D. in a rude insulting manner. I handed it over to her, but reeled over the fact that there appeared to be a case of mistaken identity or something. I mean, why was she harassing me?
When I asked her to explain her actions, she sought a quick defense. In response, she stated matter-of-fact that she spied me wandering about the casino floor, not betting, and looking suspicious.
Total nonsense!
In fact, in my hand I held a voucher that was dated and time-stamped, that verified I had been plugging coins into the slots for the previous half hour, contrary to her wild allegations!
Obviously, I caught the woman in a lie, trying to validate her unwarranted intrusion.
For good reason, I asked for her supervisor.
A pudgy, ineffectual man appeared, pooh-poohing my claims of inappropriate conduct. So, I asked to see his boss. At this point, he was quite adamant that he was the "top brass" at the Hotel Casino. Of course, I surmised his claims were false, and demanded that the "Manager" speak with me in person on the Casino floor, pronto!
At this juncture, Mr. Realmuto - the real Casino Manager - appeared.
After a brief discussion, he concluded that my complaints were well-founded. Realmuto assured me the Security Guard would apologize (or be suspended) and went on his way to take care of other Casino Business.
However, the Security Guard refused to come back to the floor and offer regrets.
So, I reported the distressing incident on my blog, warning tourists about questionable security practices at the Golden Nugget which might warrant a boycott.
Post: January 8, 2008
In spite of the fact Mr. Kiraly read the initial Golden Nugget post (which was self-explanatory) he asked me to respond to additional questions for the article he was penning. I complied with his request, by e-mail.
For a couple of weeks, I never heard back; so, I assumed he published the article.
Then, one day out-of-the-blue, he contacted me once again. On this occasion, he assured me he was basically ready to put the news report "to bed", but needed a couple of additional details clarified for the article.
At this juncture, he asked me to provide my last name.
Duh!
When I pointed out my name was at the top of my blog, he responded, "Whoops!"
Why kind of investigative journalist was this?
Then, to make matters worse, he proceeded to ask a couple of redundant questions. Even still, I remained patient, and provided thoughtful responses without delay to assist with his investigation of the facts.
Imagine my surprise when I was searching the world-wide-web last week and came across the article he'd written, rife with false statements.
For example, Mr. Kiraly reported that I refused to show my I.D. to the security guard.
A total falsehood!
Then, he proceeded to build a story on this false premise.
For example, he wrote:
"Now, strange things happen in casinos, but what followed was one for the books. Ayrs - steadfast in his refusal to show his I.D. and quickly becoming convinced he was the victim of some form of discrimination - drew a veritable chain of Golden Nugget management into a philosophical debate over whether he had to show his I.D."
The account was totally off!
There wasn't any philosophical debate over whether I should show my I.D. How could there be? I showed it upon request.
Mr. Kiraly got all his facts screwed up.
At issue was not whether I showed my I.D. - but rather - the false allegations the security guard made on the Casino floor, which not only embarrassed and humiliated me, but damaged my name and reputation to the other Hotel guests standing nearby.
Indeed, Mr. Kiraly's twisted account of the events, actually inferred that because of an "alleged refusal" to show my I.D., I was at fault.
Hogwash; nothing could be further from the truth.
But, Mr. Kiraly's lack of journalistic skills did not end there.
When I contacted him to inform him of the "factual errors", he had the audacity to assert that I neglected to disclose I showed my I.D.
False!
The reason I chose to conduct the interview by e-mail, was to ensure that all my statements were in writing, and to prevent any misquotes. In my response communication, I pointed out that I saved copies of all the previous e-mails, and that I was able to verify he had been properly informed.
I also noted my dismay over the fact he appeared to try to shift blame on me.
To date, there has not been any reply from Mr. Kiraly.
After firing off a communication to the Editor, I received word back that a retraction would be printed.
But, how do you unring a bell?
I noticed at their web site this past week that the editor has noted in the article, at their online web site, that a mistake was made in respect to my "alleged" refusal to show I.D.
But, even in this instance, the paper has failed miserably in respect to journalistic ethics.
Normally, a newspaper prints a retraction in a "separate" notice, in a prominent place in the publication. The purpose of this procedure is to ensure attention is drawn to the fact that the journalist made a mistake in reporting the facts, and to make a good faith effort to ensure readers are aware of it.
At Las Vegas CityLife...they recognized they were legally and morally obligated to correct the errors; but, bottom line, it's evident by their sloppy patch-up job that they did not want to draw attention to the fact their managing editor made such grievous errors in respect to a representation of the facts.
I have to wonder at this point how a top-level editor managed to mess up so royally.
Does the man have difficulty reading and understanding English (and comprehending facts) or is he just out-to-lunch?
All things considered, I can't help but ponder the notion that he chose to misrepresent the facts, to suit his own agenda.
Either way you look at it, the man is a menace to the field of journalism.
Andrew Kiraly...looking a little bleary-eyed!
Saturday, March 15, 2008
Andrew Kiraly...publishes false statements, lacks professional ethics. Bleary-eyed, Las Vegas CityLife?
It must be the desert sun, or maybe there's something in the water, that makes journalists in Las Vegas so stupid...
A case in point, Andrew Kiraly - Managing Editor - of Las Vegas CityLife.
A few weeks ago, Mr. Kiraly contacted me to request an interview about an disturbing incident I reported on my blog in January, which "went down" at the Golden Nugget Hotel in Las Vegas.
In a nutshell, I was walking through the rows of one-armed bandits one afternoon in the Casino, when a female security guard ambushed me, and demanded my I.D. in a rude insulting manner. I handed it over to her, but reeled over the fact that there appeared to be a case of mistaken identity or something. I mean, why was she harassing me?
When I asked her to explain her actions, she sought a quick defense. In response, she stated matter-of-fact that she spied me wandering about the casino floor, not betting, and looking suspicious.
Total nonsense!
In fact, in my hand I held a voucher that was dated and time-stamped, that verified I had been plugging coins into the slots for the previous half hour, contrary to her wild allegations!
Obviously, I caught the woman in a lie, trying to validate her unwarranted intrusion.
For good reason, I asked for her supervisor.
A pudgy, ineffectual man appeared, pooh-poohing my claims of inappropriate conduct. So, I asked to see his boss. At this point, he was quite adamant that he was the "top brass" at the Hotel Casino. Of course, I surmised his claims were false, and demanded that the "Manager" speak with me in person on the Casino floor, pronto!
At this juncture, Mr. Realmuto - the real Casino Manager - appeared.
After a brief discussion, he concluded that my complaints were well-founded. Realmuto assured me the Security Guard would apologize (or be suspended) and went on his way to take care of other Casino Business.
However, the Security Guard refused to come back to the floor and express regrets.
So, I reported the distressing incident on my blog, warning tourists about questionable security practices at the Golden Nugget Casino which might warrant a boycott.
Post: January 8, 2008
In spite of the fact Mr. Kiraly read the initial Golden Nugget post (which was self-explanatory) he asked me to respond to additional questions for the article he was penning.
I complied with his request, by e-mail.
For a couple of weeks, I never heard back; so, I assumed he published the article.
Then, one day out-of-the-blue, he contacted me once again. On this occasion, he assured me he was basically ready to put the news report "to bed", but needed a couple of additional details clarified for the article.
At this juncture, he asked me to provide my last name.
Duh!
When I pointed out my name was at the top of my blog, he responded, "Whoops!"
Why kind of investigative journalist was this?
Then, to make matters worse, he proceeded to ask a couple of redundant questions. Even still, I remained patient, and provided thoughtful responses without delay to assist with his investigation of the facts.
Imagine my surprise when I was searching the world-wide-web last week and came across the article he'd written, rife with false statements.
For example, Mr. Kiraly reported that I refused to show my I.D. to the security guard.
A total falsehood!
Then, he proceeded to build a story on this false premise.
For example, he wrote:
"Now, strange things happen in casinos, but what followed was one for the books. Ayrs - steadfast in his refusal to show his I.D. and quickly becoming convinced he was the victim of some form of discrimination - drew a veritable chain of Golden Nugget management into a philosophical debate over whether he had to show his I.D."
The account was totally off!
There wasn't any philosophical debate over whether I should show my I.D. How could there be? I showed it upon request.
Mr. Kiraly got all his facts screwed up.
At issue was not whether I showed my I.D. - but rather - the false allegations the security guard made on the Casino floor, which not only embarrassed and humiliated me, but damaged my name and reputation to the other Hotel guests standing nearby.
Indeed, Mr. Kiraly's twisted account of the events, actually inferred that because of an "alleged refusal" to show my I.D., I was at fault.
Hogwash; nothing could be further from the truth.
But Mr. Kiraly's lack of journalistic skills did not end there.
When I contacted him to inform him of the "factual errors", he had the audacity to assert that I neglected to disclose I showed my I.D.
False!
The reason I chose to conduct the interview by e-mail was to ensure that all my statements were in writing and to prevent any misquotes.
In my response e-mail, I pointed out that I saved copies of all the communications, and had evidence in my possession that verified he had been properly informed.
I also noted my dismay over the fact he appeared to try to shift blame on me.
To date, there has not been any reply from Mr. Kiraly.
After firing off a communication to the Editor, I received word back that a retraction would be printed.
But, how do you unring a bell?
I noticed at their web site this past week, that the editor has noted in the article at their online web site, that a mistake was made in respect to my "alleged" refusal to show I.D.
But, even in this instance, the paper has failed miserably in respect to journalistic ethics.
Normally, a newspaper prints a retraction in a "separate" notice, in a prominent place in the publication. The purpose of this procedure is to ensure attention is drawn to the fact that the journalist made a mistake in reporting the facts, and to make a good faith effort to ensure readers are aware of it.
At Las Vegas CityLife...they recognized they were legally and morally obligated to correct the errors; but, bottom line, it's evident by their sloppy patch-up job that they did not want to draw attention to the fact their managing editor made such grievous errors in respect to a representation of the facts.
I have to wonder at this point how a top-level editor managed to mess up so royally.
Does the man have difficulty reading and understanding English (and comprehending facts), or is he just out-to-lunch?
All things considered, I can't help but ponder the notion that he chose to misrepresent the facts, to suit his own agenda.
Either way you look at it, the man is a menace to the field of journalism.
Andrew Kiraly...looking a little bleary-eyed!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
