Quote:
Originally posted by leagleaze
The folks at amlaw were concerned that we have attacked their reporter's honesty, I told them that I would make it clear it was my opinion, and that I had been careful to use words like feel and believe. They disagreed, felt we didn't divide up the two well. I appreciate that, though I am not sure I agree. Still, I want to be fair, so: Everything I have said about the article and Ms. Smith has been my opinion.
Now, in an email exchange I learned some more information, which is the second purpose of this post.
In his email expressing his concern the person felt we could have disagreed with the article without attacking the integrity of Ms. Smith. I understand why he feels this way, but I disagree. I disagree because it is my opinion that it is the integrity of the story and the reporting that is lacking.
This person said he is the one who decided to focus on West (something I don't think particularly bothered any of us) and boil it down to the cursing (which is I believe the meat of the problem here.) You should also know he told me that he felt our reasons were childish and petty, which is why he chose to boil them down to cursing. Or at least that is how I interpreted what he said to me.
More's the pity that this is the basis for our relationship with this news organization. We could have had a useful and mutually beneficial relationship. What a shame.
|
Her name was on the byline, she's the only person that we have had any contact with, and we had no reason at all to assume that she did not write the story. Either she is a shitty reporter who didn't give both sides to the story, or the publication is a shitty publication that wastes their reporters' time by sending them after stories that they're not going to publish anyway. If he's boiling down the story and wants to deflect the ire from his reporter, he should have fucking put his name on the byline.
