tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-627081175329856970.post3268597699907956827..comments2024-03-28T09:00:06.024+00:00Comments on Ambush Predator: Why..?JuliaMhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07844126589712842477noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-627081175329856970.post-78426478574230167082021-03-07T06:50:05.221+00:002021-03-07T06:50:05.221+00:00"Unless there are legal reasons that preclude...<i>"Unless there are legal reasons that preclude the reporting of the mitigation then it should be reported."</i><br /><br />Well, indeed. Otherwise, what's the point? Do they teach them now in journalism school to tell half a story?<br /><br />JuliaMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07844126589712842477noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-627081175329856970.post-24403813489525881102021-03-04T10:47:05.165+00:002021-03-04T10:47:05.165+00:00It's basic court reporting practise to include...It's basic court reporting practise to include any relevant mitigation when reporting a court case. Unless there are legal reasons that preclude the reporting of the mitigation then it should be reported. If the mitigation was relevant and reportable then it should have been reported. I've got a question on this one though. Was this misreporting the fault of the reporter who may even have been from PA or a similar agency that does court reports, or does the fault lie with the newspaper's sub editors? Was the mitigation properly reported and just left out by the subs? Fahrenheit211https://www.fahrenheit211.netnoreply@blogger.com