The reporter has very little say in what stories go in the paper. That decision is up to the editorial board. The reporter can pitch a story, but the whole "cheating at road races" angle probably doesn't rise to high in your normal editorial board's interest level particularly if they don't think the general public will understand it. The original story was your typical feel-good special interest story. The rebuttal means trying to explain splits and clothing changes to people that quite frankly don't give a rip. It could come down to something as simple as the editor not wanting to pay the guy to research and write the story. If it could be proved he actually defrauded a charity or did something that rises to a wider interest I'm sure it would come back on the radar, but the race cheating angle isn't really a hot topic in your average mid-market newspaper.
Murrow Junior wrote:So you are saying that a professional journalist can't find the words to tell his readers that some of the "facts" he reported in an earlier story have now come to be questioned. Really? The libel issue is Journalism 101 and, with a properly conservative clarification, no threat whatsoever. Seems like the reporter would want to clarify the original versus leaving it out there and allowing others to believe he stands by it.
To combat message board spam by non runners, we are making people answer a brief question before they can post on a thread that is over 20 days old.
If you answer this question you will be able to post.
Who of the following is not an American runner?