Quote:
Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard
That is my view, the $600,000 price tag is massive, especially considering that while they would have an exclusive on the story, that would last for all of 10 seconds until another news agency put out their own story... there really isn't any massive benefit to the Star purchasing the story for a large sum of money.
|
Without the direct evidence on display there is no credibility.
A reporter saying I saw it with nothing backing it up is equivalent with me saying I saw a video of you having sex with a bear and putting that story on line. Hey I saw the video, you were totally pounding that bear and the look on your face was somewhere between joy and fear.
Its the old saying, is it live or is it memorex. When your running a story with the potential to both ruin a persons career as well as his life, you'd better have strong evidence to back it up. Reporters claiming that they saw it doesn't pass the mustard test. The only way I would consider it to be close to semi credible is if the reporters that claimed to saw it were ready to put that down on a legal document.