Quote:
Originally Posted by GGG
So I think this is a good question.
The original version of the article made it sound like they had seen the emails. That one was updated to clearly indicate they had sources that said they had seen the emails.
Now the CBC regrets that they posted that the Premiers office sent emails to the prosecutors office. So the CBC reported based on an anonymous source that there were emails from the premiers office to the crowns office. If you note CBC did not retract anything else about the content of the story so you are correct. The CBC relied on an anonymous source and overstated the evidence.
|
I'm sure you know this, but many others seem to struggle with the concept...the source was certainly not anonymous to the CBC.