Devildoc
Verified Military
Coming into this late and with speed reading the posts. If the paper knew the reporter/columnist was doing something incorrect or unethical, then the paper is complicit. If they did not know, and printed a retraction or clarification, or apology, that's what they should have done. Then shit-canned the reporter. Newspapers/media outlets like to apologize about as much as a politician likes to apologize, so I am sure it was a tacit response meant to put a 'period' on the issue and move on. If it was meant to be a 'gotcha' piece or a 'hit piece', which is about the lowest form of 'journalism,' then it's about as unethical as it gets. It is unfortunate that people don't bitch about the 1st amendment and this garbage as much as they do the 2A.