I find Rob's response above both interesting and very suspect. I'm looking at it as a journalist. Alan, how do you feel about the following?
First, Rob says he asked someone in middle management at Suncoast. He doesn't say when -- could have been at the time in question with Dancer. It could have been yesterday. Why wouldn't he mention the when of it?
Second, he then gives a verbatim quote. That's highly unusual, considering if the quote was from the time of Dancer's articles, Rob would have had to have a tape of the conversation or a copy of the article in which they are printed (his GT articles) to provide that. If the information was recent, as in yesterday, I'll buy that Rob remembered a verbatim quote. But if it was from yesterday, how do we know the source was working during the time Dancer said he was banned? No mention is made of Dancer in the source quotes. If Rob wasn't quoting from a tape or a print article, unless he has an eidetic memory, he has no business providing a "verbatim quote."
Third, by providing a "verbatim quote" Rob provides a level of insulation against legal consequences. Rob hasn't, in the posts, said "Dancer is lying." He hemmed and hawed his way around it, using a "verbatim quote" as the most damning piece of evidence against Dancer. I think Rob is smart enough to be extremely careful in what he actually says directly about Dancer. Instead he says "APs" or something general to maneuver past slander issues.
I think inserting a "verbatim quote" in the post above stands out like the proverbial sore thumb. It's a hard thing to buy at face value from a journalistic perspective.
Of course, one can make up anything one wants as a pseudonym. Or can one? Alan, do dueling pseudonyms have the same legal status and consequences as people?
Reply With Quote