Kate of "Small Dead Animals" objected to Lisa LaFlamme "[pondering] out loud whether a jury of common Chicago folk was equipped to understand the legal and financial complexities that underpin the case." Her response is classic.
In my own opinion, however, Ms. LaFlamme was called on some on-air speculating. I myself haven't seen much that is objectionable in Ms. LaFlamme's reporting, so I would cast that remark as a slip-up. (If I'm too forgiving, given how much I myself have summed up Ms. LaFlamme's reporting on this blog, I'm in for more self-embarrassment.)
If you'd like to join in the growing media-bashing, or if you're just curious about the reaction to Kate's post, the comments section of that post is here.
As far as I know, Ms. LaFlamme never got the flak that Peter Worthington did. (See the end of this column, for a brief riposte to Mr. Worthington's Friday one on the trial, which made the same point that Ms. LaFlamme did. Mr. Worthington clarified what he was driving at in the last part of his latest column.)
To move back to the news watch: news of the Conrad Black trial has made it onto both CNBC's Website and CNNMoney's.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment