Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (11872)	10/11/2003 8:56:16 PM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793625

By John S. Carroll Extremely well done. Tough guy. We'll see what happens next.

To: LindyBill who wrote (11872)	10/11/2003 11:29:11 PM
From: greenspirit	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793625

A weak defense if you ask me. He never really goes into why the paper chose to investigate these allegations, nor why the paper didn't go after the Davis camp in a similar vein in regard to the stories about temper tantrums. He seems to complain endlessly about the short time frame for investigative reporting. Excuse me, 60 something days and two seasoned investigative reports struggled till the very last few days to find anything credible? He needs to hire better investigative reporting if this is all they dug up on a mega-star in 60 days. Basically, we are all supposed to believe him that these reports didn't come from Davis operatives. And we're supposed to believe him that these were credible eyewitnesses. We're dealing with hollywood and a mega-star who has been in the public light for decades. If these events are page one newsworthy, then perhaps he can explain to me why the paper neglected to cover rape charges against Bill Clinton? No John Carrol, this weak defense will not save your papers already tarnished and extremely biased reputation.