86.0
Saturday, May 26, 2012

Comments by

Page 1 of 3 | Next

Posted on June 10 at 11:09 a.m.Suggest removal

If I had a camera shoved in my face at the end of my work day, I'd say some stupid stuff, too. What she said was strong and I do not agree (she probably doesn't fully agree with herself), but it doesn't make her a heathen to be disowned. She did incredible things for journalism, for women, for politics. We don't have to like everything everyone says. This is America, after all.

On

Posted on March 4 at 10:05 a.m.Suggest removal

Getting some statewide coverage - good job. Everyone loves a bit of sex scandal.

On

Posted on March 2 at 7:57 p.m.Suggest removal

A very, very sad situation.

Please stop with the anonymous sources, though, Daily staff. It's a bad, lazy habit.

On

Posted on March 2 at 9:16 a.m.Suggest removal

I am shocked, but not surprised, I suppose.

On

Posted on February 19 at 2 p.m.Suggest removal

This story is in no way important enough or relevant enough to warrant anonymous sources. It is an eye-catching, juicy story that was bound to get attention and so it was hard to let go because of the obstacle of anonymous sources. I understand that. I was the opinion editor at the Daily and news editor for the Hub in recent years, so I understand exactly why and how you came to this conclusion. However, I truly feel that it was misjudged and not warranted. It's an interesting story, no doubt, but is it worth stepping in to 'anonymous sources territory' (which is a dangerous thing and should be reserved only for the very crucial stories) for this? No, I don't believe so.

On

Posted on February 19 at 1:54 p.m.Suggest removal

Amen, Patricia.

On

Posted on February 18 at 10:57 a.m.Suggest removal

If she's not willing to remove her anonymity, stop covering the story. I can't believe it's still being covered. Leave them be.

On

Posted on February 16 at 11:21 a.m.Suggest removal

It is not unknown for situations like this to occur, so really we shouldn't be speaking negatively about the girl in question. What we should question is why the newspaper thought it necessary to report on this and use anonymous sources. If you have to go anonymous, you probably shouldn't do the story. This is a private matter and should not be in the newspaper.

On

Posted on January 20 at 3:53 p.m.Suggest removal

This is very sad. Sounds like he was a nice guy.

On

Posted on December 15 at 12:20 p.m.Suggest removal

"loose" should be "lose".

On

Page 1 of 3 | Next