One more thing is that those who do the stories are known to disregard HOW things are said.  

When there are words used, especially those that evoke more drama (even when obviously used in another intention), many "journalists" tend to stick with what was technically said versus what was obviously communicated in the conversation.  

A couple of years ago, I was misquoted by a fast talking "journalist" who seemed disinterested in the overall facts of a subject and more interested in why this and why that on a small part that interested her.  After it was published, the only information printed turned out to be misleading and inaccurate because of partial reporting.  Although it was arguably correct, the final mix was disappointingly incomplete.  

Therefore, I am sure there is more to it, if this publication will give space for rebuttals by all involved, including the one interviewed.  

 CopyBoy007
DeskDemon Forum Board Staff