I'm not wrong about that, am I?
Why is Dean Eramo's lawyer suggesting that Rolling Stone's fact-checker had an authority that she didn't have, or that it was an authority negligently vetoed by Rolling Stone's management at the time that the article was published?
It seems to me that the last person who ought to be offering opinions about how a reporter's article should be written is the fact-checker. The fact-checker is there to verify or discount statements, not to make interpretations.
Also, after several pages of trying to convince the court that Rolling Stone should have listened to the fact-checker, the court filing from Dean Eramo's attorney has this to say about the fact-checker:
Why did Dean Eramo's lawyer spend several pages trying to say that Rolling Stone should have listened to the fact-checker and then try to make the fact-checker seem as if the fact-checker wasn't credible?
Copyright, with noted exceptions, L. Kochman, July 24, 2016 @ 10:58 p.m.
