3 ms·
It was "strongly implied" because no one was in the driver's seat. Now there is evidence there was a driver, after an investigation. Why should they retract an
by itsoktocry 5y ago
It was "strongly implied" because no one was in the driver's seat. Now there is evidence there was a driver, after an investigation. Why should they retract anything?
- prophesi 5y agoThe actual reason they don't need to retract anything is that the sensational articles already paid off, and they're now off to write another unsubstantiated claim of a headline on something else.
- NikolaeVarius 5y agoBecause lying tends to reduce trust.
- SllX 5y agoWould be good form after a reactionary piece prior to the results of the NTSB investigation to see the publications that published such pieces take some responsibility for what they publish. Better form would have been not publishing reactionary articles in the first place.
- adolph 5y agoSo you are saying in the absence of evidence they claimed that there was no driver and they have no reason to correct that misinformation?
- Jordrok 5y agoYou do realize that it was the police who originally stated that there was no driver?
- adolph 5y agoWhy would a serious publication take statements of the police at face value much less as evidence of anything? > It was "strongly implied" because no one was in the driver's seat. Now there is evidence there was a driver, after an investigation. Why should they retract anything? A publication which does not retract or correct misinformation is a key part of the problem.
- justicezyx 5y agoOh, I don't know that AP was invented as a car feature for so long, I mean dozing and drunken drivers must "strongly implied" because no one was driving...