The malicious statements of anonymous sources saying @MichaelAvenatti mistreated media staff is not verifiable, because they won’t name those sources, and they never gave him the opportunity to refute such claims prior to printing. That’s lazy and unethical journalism.
Really brave of reporters to wait until Michael Avenatti had been indicted for serial fraud and theft to report about how he mistreated members of the most sacred profession.https://twitter.com/amychozick/status/1131275976099401728 …
-
-
-
There's too many anonymous sources. Usually you remain anonymous for safety reasons. Not just privacy reasons, & that's second to first if not the same. But this kind of information is not dangerous, it would be helpful if these sources were named- because it adds legitimacy.
-
Right, but they don’t, because it isn’t true, and citing anonymous sources prevents discovery of the malicious lies they are spreading.
-
Which is why it’s cowardice plain and simple. There’s nothing admissible but maybe hold off an future interviews.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
This Tweet is unavailable
-
-
Kind of like when CNN came out and said they were reporting what Iraq/Saddam wanted them too and they came clean after he was gone...speaking out during the evil is the hard thing...not admitting it after
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
No matter how low they have to sink, the enemy of Trump will@always be their friend.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Jake Wohl stock suddenly looking not that terrible by comparison lol
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.