Courant Editor Hazell fabricates conversations, claims to be at meeting she wasn't, sends out emails giving instructions on how key advertisers are to be treated different

I have no idea what is going on with Courant editor Naedine Hazell – who not long ago was a well respected journalist by many of the staff at the oldest continuosly published newspaper in the country.

But when she makes up conversations that didn’t happen, pretends that conversations that did happen did not, and claims in the New York Times to have been at a meeting she wasn’t, something is terribly wrong.

 Naedine has been pushed out front by the chief editor and publisher, who are hiding behind her skirt, hoping that she will take all the hits for their actions. I wonder how long she will last before they decide she can’t help them anymore and will throw her under the bus and con someone else to be their shield?

In this blog I will set out what Naedine has said publicly, what the facts are, and emails between her and I that will help you decide who is on the level and who is not.

First, I would like to present internal emails that will prove false Courant management claims that they did not want me and other staffers to treat key avertisers and potential key advertisers different than non advertisers. I want to apologize up front that this is not going to be easy reading – you will have to read closely, look at the time and topic in each email. But if you go through these real carefully I think you will understand what is going on.

 From: Gombossy, George
Sent: Sat 7/11/2009 11:30 AM
To: Hazell, Naedine
Cc: Levine, Jeffrey S; Delucia, Lynne

Subject:

Naedine

 I thought it might be helpful if I wrote out my understanding  of what Jeff’s instructions are and listed questions that come to mind immediately on how I can comply with them.

 COLUMNS AND BITES IN PRINT

All columns and bites involving complaints or problems should include suggestions on how consumers can avoid the problem or mitigate it.

I need to alert my editor if a column or bite has anything negative about a major advertiser – the list having been provided to me Friday. I assume it is then the editor’s responsibility to alert Jeff.

If a print item involves one of these advertisers, I need to put that into context as to how that advertiser’s problem compares to other similar companies or entities.

 Question – how do I deal with negative comments involving the state (since it’s a major advertiser) and its various agencies??????

 Blog

All blog items need to make clear at the top whether it’s my comments or a reader’s comments.

 Questions??????

Must all blog items I write critical of a major advertiser be first submitted to an editor? Who?

Must all blog items in this category written DIRECTLY by a reader be first submitted to an editor? Who?

Must all blog items that originate from a reader as an email or a letter – again in this category – that I want to post as a blog item be first submitted to an editor? Who?

Must all COMMENTS about these blog items be first reviewed by an editor before I allow them to be posted? Who?

 I am sure other questions will come to mind for all of us, but if I can receive guidance on these questions as soon as possible it would be appreciated.

Frankly, until then, I will not be comfortable blogging any critical items or permitting negative comments to be posted on CTWatchdog about a major advertiser.

 Thanks

George

—–Original Message—–
From: Hazell, Naedine
Sent: Sunday, July 12, 2009 11:28 AM
To: Gombossy, George
Cc: Levine, Jeffrey S; Delucia, Lynne
Subject: RE:

Obviously, we’re treating this blog differently than others in that it seems many of the posts will need to be reviewed by an editor first, including reader comments…We don’t currently have a procedure for this.
It’s worth holding off on posts until we can talk and clarify the blog’s roll going forward or if we want to try a different format.
—–Original Message—–
From: Gombossy, George
Sent: Friday, July 10, 2009 3:32 PM
To: Hazell, Naedine
Cc: Delucia, Lynne; Haar, Dan
Subject: Re: TOP ADVERTISERS JAN-JUN 2009.xls
 
This of course will present challenges since even the state of ct is a top advertiser

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 10, 2009, at 3:16 PM, “Hazell, Naedine” <NHazell@courant.com> wrote:
 
 
<TOP MAJORS-CLASSIFIED ADVERTISERS JAN-JUN 2009.xls>
———- Forwarded message ———-
From: “Gombossy, George” <GGombossy@courant.com>
To: “Hazell, Naedine” <NHazell@courant.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2009 13:37:05 -0500
Subject: Naedine, I have to leave in a few minutes and won’t be back for two hours, any word on whether I should use that paragraph? gg

 
 
George Gombossy
Hartford Courant Watchdog Consumer Columnist
Watchdog@courant.com
Blog: www.courant.com/ctwatchdog
Twitter: http://twitter.com/ctwatchdog
Facebook: George Gombossy
 
———- Forwarded message ———-
From: “Gombossy, George” <GGombossy@courant.com>
To: “Hazell, Naedine” <NHazell@courant.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2009 17:50:24 -0500
Subject: RE: Watchdog and advertisers

Naedine
I asked Nancy Meyer if Aiello was an advertiser or not, because it wasn’t clear in my mind. I had never seen one of their ads in our paper.
Its because I may not know who all our advertisers are that I am asking that I be given a list so I can comply with Jeff’s directive. I frankly did not think that readers’ items on my blog would be the same as me writing a column, but if you believe it is covered by Jeff’s directive then it is vital for me to have a list and to let me know who I should run the items and comments by before publishing them on my blog.
Thanks
George
 
George Gombossy
Hartford Courant Watchdog Consumer Columnist
Watchdog@courant.com
Blog: www.courant.com/ctwatchdog
Twitter: http://twitter.com/ctwatchdog
Facebook: George Gombossy
 
From: Hazell, Naedine
Sent: Thursday, July 09, 2009 5:06 PM
To: Gombossy, George
Cc: Delucia, Lynne
Subject: RE: Watchdog and advertisers
 
Who did you ask for a list of advertisers?
 
From: Gombossy, George
Sent: Thursday, July 09, 2009 2:38 PM
To: Hazell, Naedine
Cc: Delucia, Lynne
Subject: RE: Watchdog and advertisers
 
I am around next week Naedine.
So until next week do you want me to run by someone every blog entry critical of an advertiser written by readers prior to my publishing them?
If so, who do you want me to approve the entries. Can someone provide me a list of all advertisers, including those on the web.
Thanks
George
 
George Gombossy
Hartford Courant Watchdog Consumer Columnist
Watchdog@courant.com
Blog: www.courant.com/ctwatchdog
Twitter: http://twitter.com/ctwatchdog
Facebook: George Gombossy
 
From: Hazell, Naedine
Sent: Thursday, July 09, 2009 2:30 PM
To: Gombossy, George; Delucia, Lynne
Cc: Levine, Jeffrey S; Hunt, Kevin
Subject: Watchdog and advertisers
 
George,
I think that blog entries were implied, although were not explicit, in the discussion we had about notification when an item involved an advertiser.
Seems that we should all touch base again next week when Jeff is back from vacation. Are you around next week?
Thanks,
Naedine
 
From: Gombossy, George
Sent: Thursday, July 09, 2009 2:15 PM
To: Delucia, Lynne; Hazell, Naedine
Cc: Levine, Jeffrey S
Subject: RE: I found this..after I spoke to George:
 
Naedine
I am a little confused about the latest exchanges involving a blog item written (not by me) but a consumer about Price Chopper.
First of all, my understanding was that Jeff asked to be notified of any column or bite that I wrote about that was derogatory about an advertiser. Blogs were not included in that discussion. I assume you were also under that impression since I have posted and written numerous blog items about advertisers without any feedback.
Virtually every blog item and comment I have written or published involves an advertiser or a potential advertiser. In some cases I may not even be aware that a company advertises with us (like I was unaware that Aiello was an advertiser). I have requested information from our advertising head but did not get an answer about whether Aeillo was an advertiser.
I could really use some specific instructions on what The Courant would like me to do when it comes to the Watchdog blog.
 
Thanks
George

Lynne DeLucia
Assistant Managing Editor State/Metro
860-241-6208
ldelucia@courant.com
From: Delucia, Lynne
Sent: Thursday, July 09, 2009 1:25 PM
To: Levine, Jeffrey S
Cc: Hazell, Naedine
Subject: RE: I found this..after I spoke to George:
 
George’s claims are accurate.
The complaint came from a customer.    He researched the issue on the internet.  Before posting it on the internet – he sent Price Chopper the complaint.  Price Chopper chose to respond directly on the blog and Mona Golub’s comments are visible on the site.   
 
He blogs about companies all the time and I would say that all of them are advertisers or likely advertisers.   
Did he tell me he was posting this no, he didn’t.  (Or I would have know what you were talking about when you emailed me.)     When we met we discussed when he wrote about an advertiser to give a heads up.   He took that to mean the newspaper.   (and frankly, I did too.   )
 
Lynne
 
 
 
 
Lynne DeLucia
Assistant Managing Editor State/Metro
860-241-6208
ldelucia@courant.com
From: Levine, Jeffrey S
Sent: Thursday, July 09, 2009 12:58 PM
To: Delucia, Lynne
Cc: Hazell, Naedine
Subject: Re: I found this..after I spoke to George:
 
So are George’s claims accurate? Are the store reps? Did he give us a heads up before writing about a major client?

 

From: Delucia, Lynne
To: Levine, Jeffrey S
Cc: Hazell, Naedine
Sent: Thu Jul 09 11:51:17 2009
Subject: RE: I found this..after I spoke to George:
Here it is.
LYNNE
 
PRice Chopper complaint: customer claims crab advertisement false
By
George Gombossy
 on July 2, 2009 10:26 AM | Permalink | Comments (3)
As if it isn’t bad enough with the economic situation, now we have the issue of false advertising.
 
The Price Chopper Ad (prices effective June 28-July 4)  lists Catch of the Week – Maryland Primes dressed soft shell crabs $3.99 each.

Wednesday, July 1, I drove over to my local Price Chopper at 35 Talcottville Rd. Vernon with great anticipation of acquiring these tasty morsels.

As I waited at the seafood counter, I noticed that the soft shells looked very small.  I was hoping items behind the glass appeared smaller than actual size!!  I ask a clerk how much one weighs.
She said “Oh, I don’t know, maybe 2 ounces”.  I asked her if she would weigh one for me.  A male clerk stepped in and took a crab ( one of the bigger ones) from the case and put it on the scale. 

It weighed 1(one) ounce.  I was astounded. Are they even legal??? I told him that “Primes” must be a minimum of 3.3 ounces.  He said ” You have to understand that our ads are not always accurate”.  REALLY!!!
 
Just as eggs have a standard weight – large dozens must weigh a minimum of 24 ounces, there is a standard in the industry for soft shell crabs. 
 
Whales – 5 1/2″ plus – 5.9 ounces
Jumbos 5″ – 5 1/2″  – 4.5 ounces
Primes 4 1/2″ – 5″ – 3.3 ounces
Hotels 4″-4 1/2″ – 2.5 ounces
Medium 3 1/2″-4″ – 1.8 ounces
 
I proceeded to the Customer Service ( I use that term loosely) and ask to speak to the store manager.  The woman said she was a shift supervisor perhaps she could help since managers were in a meeting.

 After I went through the scenario, she said she would page the store manager and get him from his meeting…which she did, however, he was in the opposite corner in a conversation.

  Anyway, his name was Nick Micale ( asst. manager) and he acted as if I was interrupting his day and admitted he knew nothing about soft shell crabs and shrugged a lot.  He did not apologize or offer any explanation – NOTHING!  He just said he’d look into it and walked away. 
 
I wouldn’t be surprised if I drove to the same store before the sale ends, I would find the same sign and the same soft shell crabs listed as Primes. 
 
People are really tired of being taken advantage of, including me.
 
Just thought I would share this with you.
 
Thanks for listening.
 
Regards,
 
Wendy Steele
Categories:
·         Food,
·         Grocery Stores
3 Comments
By Mona Golub on July 2, 2009 2:28 PM
Wendy,
Though nothing can excuse the insufficient responses given to you at our Vernon store, I hope I can rectify the situation by providing you with verifiable answers to your questions:

3.3oz. represents the standard LIVE weight of a Maryland Prime softshell crab. Grading on a DRESSED or gutted Maryland Prime softshell crab, like those which Price Chopper is advertising and selling, is based upon a standard measurement across the back from point to point, which for Prime softshell crab is 4.5 – 5 inches.
Understandably, with the eyes and internal organs removed, plus some evaporation due to transport time and chilling, dressed Maryland Prime softshell crab weighs less than its live, fully-intact counterpart. The weight of a dressed crab runs anywhere from 1.75-2.25oz., however the standard measurement across the back will not vary, making it clear which Maryland crabs make the Prime grade…as do those found at Price Chopper.
By the by, our seafood scales measure not by the ounce, but rather by hundredths of a pound. Therefore, .11 on the scale does not translate to 1oz. but rather 1.76oz.; .12 on the scale = 1.92oz., .13 on the scale = 2.08oz., and so on.
Please don’t hesitate to reach out to me should you need further clarification or have any other questions.
Sincerely,
Mona Golub
VP Public Relations and Consumer Services for Price Chopper
(518) 379-1480 or monag@pricechopper.com
By Bob Bitondi on July 2, 2009 2:46 PM
I found the same thing at the same Vernon Price Chopper store today (7/2/09). I was told that the 4 soft shell crabs in the case were all that they had left. They were flattened and pitifully small. When I pointed this out to the woman waiting on me she said, “That’s why they order a lot.” Huh?
I bought two of them only because my wife really had her heart set on soft shell crabs when she saw PC’s ad. But $8 for a couple ounces of seafood is insulting.
Price Chopper owes us an apology. Some decent soft shell crabs would be nice too.
Bob
By Marie on July 2, 2009 3:53 PM
Softshell crabs are a delicacy that cost $15-$20 for a petite plate of 2 or 3 at a nice restaurant. I think it’s great that Price Chopper is offering them before the season is over. Perhaps I’ll go over and buy the last 4 for myself!
Leave a comment
 

LAST SET OF EMAILS BEFORE I WAS FIRED

—–Original Message—–
From: Hazell, Naedine
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2009 8:36 AM
To: Gombossy, George
Cc: Levine, Jeffrey S; Delucia, Lynne

Subject: RE: 100 comments waiting for publishing on CTWachdog

My recollection from our meeting was that we all agreed to any posting
that met the same standards that we agreed on for the column. That’s
what is in my notes.
Does anyone have a different recollection?

Name
Email Address

 
—–Original Message—–
From: Gombossy, George
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2009 10:02 AM
To: Hazell, Naedine
Cc: Levine, Jeffrey S; Delucia, Lynne

Subject: RE: 100 comments waiting for publishing on CTWachdog

My recollection and notes from our meeting reflect that I was given
permission to post MY OWN blog items that were not sensitive, did not
negatively reflect on key advertisers (such as governmental press
releases), without prior approval.

There was no decision made at the meeting on what to do with COMMENTS
that readers send me in reaction to blog items.
That decision was put off until Jeff decided whether he would allow
continuation of the blog and column and whether they would be written by
me or by my replacement.

I feel very strongly that it is in the best interest of the Courant and
consumers to either notify readers that temporarily/permanently their
comments will not be published, or make a decision as soon as possible
how to handle the comments – an issue that you wrote me you have very
specific concerns about.

I think it is unfair to invite readers to write comments and then hold
them for weeks. I have had five additional comments that came in since
my last email yesterday.

As you know Naedine, you can see all pending comments by logging into my
blog.

Thanks
George

George Gombossy
Hartford Courant Watchdog Consumer Columnist
Watchdog@courant.com
Blog: www.courant.com/ctwatchdog
Twitter: http://twitter.com/ctwatchdog
Facebook: George Gombossy

—–Original Message—–
From: Hazell, Naedine
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2009 12:45 PM
To: Gombossy, George
Cc: Levine, Jeffrey S; Delucia, Lynne

Subject: RE: 100 comments waiting for publishing on CTWachdog

Hey George,
       Hmmm, obviously we remember the meeting differently, so let me
clarify some points.
       Going forward, I think that, journalistically, it would be
responsible to post online the comments that we also would feel
comfortable putting in print. I think that holds true in all cases,
whether the posts are about individuals, key advertisers or government
offices. And while we’re on the subject, there was never any discussion
about posting items (or writing columns for that matter) about
government offices or policies. The discussions have been about giving
editors a heads up when the column/blog is about an advertiser so that
the account executives would be forewarned, as well as about the need to
change the column/blog’s tone and approach from “gotcha” to “help you.”
No one has asked for preferential coverage for advertisers. And Jeff
didn’t say anything about a replacement for you in our meeting.
       Blogging is still a new frontier where the rules are still be
debated and made, so it seems safe to apply our print standards until
there can be more discussion and consideration of best practices.
       Thanks,
       Naedine

—–Original Message—–
From: Gombossy, George

 

 

 

 

 

—–Original Message—–
From: Gombossy, George
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2009 10:02 AM
To: Hazell, Naedine
Cc: Levine, Jeffrey S; Delucia, Lynne

Subject: RE: 100 comments waiting for publishing on CTWachdog

My recollection and notes from our meeting reflect that I was given
permission to post MY OWN blog items that were not sensitive, did not
negatively reflect on key advertisers (such as governmental press
releases), without prior approval.

There was no decision made at the meeting on what to do with COMMENTS
that readers send me in reaction to blog items.
That decision was put off until Jeff decided whether he would allow
continuation of the blog and column and whether they would be written by
me or by my replacement.

I feel very strongly that it is in the best interest of the Courant and
consumers to either notify readers that temporarily/permanently their
comments will not be published, or make a decision as soon as possible
how to handle the comments – an issue that you wrote me you have very
specific concerns about.

I think it is unfair to invite readers to write comments and then hold
them for weeks. I have had five additional comments that came in since
my last email yesterday.

As you know Naedine, you can see all pending comments by logging into my
blog.

Thanks
George

George Gombossy
Hartford Courant Watchdog Consumer Columnist
Watchdog@courant.com
Blog: www.courant.com/ctwatchdog
Twitter: http://twitter.com/ctwatchdog
Facebook: George Gombossy

—–Original Message—–
From: Hazell, Naedine
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2009 12:45 PM
To: Gombossy, George
Cc: Levine, Jeffrey S; Delucia, Lynne

Subject: RE: 100 comments waiting for publishing on CTWachdog

Hey George,
       Hmmm, obviously we remember the meeting differently, so let me
clarify some points.
       Going forward, I think that, journalistically, it would be
responsible to post online the comments that we also would feel
comfortable putting in print. I think that holds true in all cases,
whether the posts are about individuals, key advertisers or government
offices. And while we’re on the subject, there was never any discussion
about posting items (or writing columns for that matter) about
government offices or policies. The discussions have been about giving
editors a heads up when the column/blog is about an advertiser so that
the account executives would be forewarned, as well as about the need to
change the column/blog’s tone and approach from “gotcha” to “help you.”
No one has asked for preferential coverage for advertisers. And Jeff
didn’t say anything about a replacement for you in our meeting.
       Blogging is still a new frontier where the rules are still be
debated and made, so it seems safe to apply our print standards until
there can be more discussion and consideration of best practices.
       Thanks,
       Naedine

—–Original Message—–
From: Gombossy, George

 

 

 

Sent: Sunday, August 02, 2009 11:42 AM
To: Hazell, Naedine
Cc: Levine, Jeffrey S; Delucia, Lynne; Hunt, Kevin
Subject: RE: 100 comments waiting for publishing on CTWachdog

 Naedine

After spending several days reflecting on both my memory of the last
meeting between yourself, Lynne, Jeff, and me, conversations prior and
after that meeting, as well as checking notes I took during the meeting,
and immediately after, I agree that we have much different takes on what
was said as well as what was agreed on during that 40 minute session.

There is no question in my mind that Jeff raised the issues of whether
my column/blog will continue and whether I would be the one doing them.
Also there was no discussion about me writing “gotcha” columns or
stories, nor was there any agreement or directive on which comments
would be allowed to be posted.

The conversation began with Jeff telling me that I made a mistake in the
handling of the Price Chopper blog item and that Price Chopper said that
as the result it was cancelling a proposed $100,000 ad campaign with us.

My credibility with the publisher is now in serious doubt, Jeff said.

After further discussion about the issue of my credibility with the
publisher, the Price Chopper blog, and my instructions from my previous
managers on how I should conduct myself, I raised the question of what
Jeff wanted to do about comments readers want posted in response to blog
items.

Neither Jeff nor Lynne were clear on the process by which comments were
posted on blogs. After you and I explained that with blogs, unlike
columns and stories that appear on our Internet site, all comments must
be approved by the blogger before they can post.

Jeff abruptly ended the meeting at 2:40 by stating that he would
consider what was said and would decide whether to continue the column
and the blog, what form they would take, and who would write them.

I then asked whether he wanted me to continue blogging until he made
those decisions. He said yes as long as I followed the same rules on my
blog items as he set for my column. To further clarify, I asked if that
could include press releases from governmental agencies involved in
consumer protection issues (since they only reflect the view of the
agency), and I was told I could.

The meeting ended then, with Lynne and I leaving and you staying behind.

Just like it is very easy for me to remember that my employment is
threatened, I certainly would remember if I were told that my work was
shoddy journalism by the top editor of the newspaper/TV.

I can assure you I would have had a lot to say if I were told of writing
unethical or cheap shot stories/columns.

You can look at 40 years of my personal file (including my last
evaluation just a few weeks ago) and you will not find one word on this
or any related subjects. In fact you will have to look long and hard to
find any criticism of my work despite the fact that I have been a
journalist at The Courant longer than anyone else in the newsroom.

I have received more national and state journalist awards than any other
Courant staffer in the paper’s history – including the George Polk Award
for local reporting, American Bar Association Silver Gavel, SABEW Best
in Business columnist, several SABEW’s Best Business business sections;
twice the Ted Driscoll investigative award, Aviation/Space Writers
Association Award for Excellence, and was part of the team that won The
Courant its first Pulitzer.

Nor has there been a conversation about changing the tone of my column
from an investigative consumer column: Not with you, not with Kevin, not
with Jeff and not with Lynne. If there had been, I am sure there would
have been follow up sessions and clear specific written instructions
would have been given to me. Neither Jeff, Lynne, or Kevin have
communicated any new instructions or information that conflicts with my
recollection of the meeting.

I understand clearly your present views on how comments on my blog
should be treated. If Jeff has made up his mind on this issue and agrees
with you, it has not been communicated to me directly or indirectly.

If that decision has been made, I think it’s important for the editors
to tell readers what the new standards are for CtWatchdog blog comments
so they don’t waste their time writing comments which will not be
published or keep looking on my blog and wondering why their comments
were not posted.

As far as the issue you raised about preferential treatment of prime
advertisers, I will probably have more to say on that topic after I
learn why my column on the Attorney General investigating Sleepy’s was
not published, as scheduled, today. Never before had a Watchdog column
been held by an editor – especially on a topic of great consumer
interest and importance.

Thank you

George

George Gombossy
Hartford Courant Watchdog Consumer Columnist
Watchdog@courant.com
Blog: www.courant.com/ctwatchdog
Twitter: http://twitter.com/ctwatchdog
Facebook: George Gombossy

After receiving this email, according to a source, Courant and Tribune officials decided that they had to get rid of me.

George Gombossy
Share

4 Comments on "Courant Editor Hazell fabricates conversations, claims to be at meeting she wasn't, sends out emails giving instructions on how key advertisers are to be treated different"

  1. I am seriously debating not getting my news from the Courant or Channel 61 anymore, George. It is unconscionable for an editor and staff to just pull stuff out off thin air to sully your reputation and stymie consumers.
    Quite frankly, George, I would take these journalistic shysters for every cent they have…

  2. George, George, George,

    Didn’t they tell you that you are only allowed to “Tell It Like It Is” about everybody else? Well, at least the ‘everybody else’ category that doesn’t include the shrinking world of Courant advertisers.

    Or Courant editors. Or Channel 61 personnel? Or their friends. And their pets. And their next door neighbor’s cousin’s brother’s roommate’s co-workers.

    Now, is that clear? I’m glad we’ve had this little discussion. I hope it has been helpful and sets the tone “going forward.”

  3. George, though I am generally on your side in this whole thing, the Pricechopper post on your blog was mishandled. I’ve read your blog since it started, and was indeed wondering about the journalistic integrity of simply running reader’s letters without proper checking.

    I began to wonder if the watchdog blog was simply a place where unresearched stories could be ran (assuming they were written by readers). I have to say that I agree with the Courant in that anything you ran on your blog should’ve gone through the same process as something ran in print. Im not talking about blog comments like this one (I cant imagine anyone really caring about that), but rather blog posts, posted by you.

    The Pricechopper complaint turned out to be a mistake by the consumer, but because there wasn’t any followup on this no one caught it. There was a confusing followup post by you barely acknowledging the mistake. I thought to myself, this is hardly fair to Pricechopper, and it was poor journalistic style, similar to tabloids where any stray letter can run as a story.

    If the Courant was telling you to treat advertising companies differently than non-advertising companies, than that is unacceptable and the story needs to be further exposed. However, I do think the issues need to be seperated as I agree that having unresearched items ran on your blog was poor journalism.

  4. George, good for you for standing up for yourself.

Comments are closed.