Politics for Pros- moderated Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Lane3 who wrote (100068)	2/12/2005 4:45:56 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) of 793717

It's also theoretically possible that can't defend himself despite it being true because he can't reveal certain information for whatever reason or doesn't have overwhelming evidence, also for whatever reason. If he didn't have facts enough to report it, he didn't have facts enough to blab it to an audience of world elites at Davos. He is no novice, he is a veteran journalist. When challenged on the spot, he couldn't even come up with any cases with the names kept anonymous. He was a real dope to say it. But it's possible that it's true. Which is why I indict him for his professionalism judgment rather than lying. The word you are looking for is "innuendo". Journalists should not deal in defamatory innuendo without proof. There, I agree.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next