For a live feed of this continuing series, follow @irvmuch at Twitter.
PARTS 337 – 348
WWE on Muchnick’s ‘CHRIS & NANCY’ Pt. 337 because previous queries of mine to the Albany district attorney (on other matters) had gone
WWE on Muchnick’s ‘CHRIS & NANCY’ Pt. 338 unanswered. I therefore concluded that that office, like the WWE generally, was not talking to me,
WWE on Muchnick’s ‘CHRIS & NANCY’ Pt. 339 and I decided to quote Meltzer without elaboration. I did not simply frame the combination
WWE on Muchnick’s ‘CHRIS & NANCY’ Pt. 340 of McDevitt’s and Meltzer’s statements as a dispute; if I had, I think the item would have been
WWE on Muchnick’s ‘CHRIS & NANCY’ Pt. 341 in bounds. However, the headline and the way the two accounts were juxtaposed conveyed
WWE on Muchnick’s ‘CHRIS & NANCY’ Pt. 342 the impression that McDevitt’s was “misleading,” whereas Meltzer’s was authoritative. Therefore,
WWE on Muchnick’s ‘CHRIS & NANCY’ Pt. 343 my resolution of McDevitt’s objection to the item would turn on whatever Meltzer would tell me
WWE on Muchnick’s ‘CHRIS & NANCY’ Pt. 344 about the underlying authority for the report of his that I had quoted. After talking to Meltzer,
WWE on Muchnick’s ‘CHRIS & NANCY’ Pt. 345 I concluded that my item was wrong, warranting the retraction and apology published
WWE on Muchnick’s ‘CHRIS & NANCY’ Pt. 346 in the previous item on this blog. Irvin Muchnick
WWE on Muchnick’s ‘CHRIS & NANCY’ Pt. 347 Jerry McDevitt email to Irvin Muchnick, 6/18/09 2:54 p.m., “RE: Muchnick to McDevitt”
WWE on Muchnick’s ‘CHRIS & NANCY’ Pt. 348 First of all, you have not quoted the entirety of the email I sent to you demonstrating
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment