Yeah, this was fucking awful even by MSM standards. It would be terrible enough if Matt actually said those words in a completely different and reasonable context, but he literally never even said them- it was a reply from someone completly opposed to Walsh.
The 1st editor to lay eyes on this should have, as a matter of common sense, said "He didn't really say that, did he? I must ensure there's solid proof before allowing that to be published..." And if not then why didn't that editor's boss?
It seems contrived. At least the "slander someone for publicity" part. They may or may not have anticipated having to take it down. They have to screech to be heard.
Fire her, fire the editor who approved it, fire every person with the slightest objection to either of those two being fired.
Yeah, this was fucking awful even by MSM standards. It would be terrible enough if Matt actually said those words in a completely different and reasonable context, but he literally never even said them- it was a reply from someone completly opposed to Walsh.
The 1st editor to lay eyes on this should have, as a matter of common sense, said "He didn't really say that, did he? I must ensure there's solid proof before allowing that to be published..." And if not then why didn't that editor's boss?
It seems contrived. At least the "slander someone for publicity" part. They may or may not have anticipated having to take it down. They have to screech to be heard.