Quote:
Originally Posted by NC_Skins
We aren't debating about fact, we are debating context. I think the sentence
This isn't meant to be taken literally that Dan Snyder is the guy actually forging names. It's meant to be taken that Dan Snyder was in charge of a company that was found guilty of forging names, and had to know the practices were going on.
McKenna even mentions as much later on in the article.
Context is everything. As noted by the Jerry Falwell vs Hustler case.
Hustler Magazine v. Falwell - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia |
You missed the point about context. The line read:
That’s the Dan Snyder who got caught forging names as a telemarketer with Snyder Communications
That is different from a more factually correct claim:
That’s the Dan Snyder whose company got caught forging names
Notice that if I say:
Obama leads a country which has dog fighting
it is different than if I say:
Obama fights dogs in his country
Yes, context is everything, and on this point the newspaper is in the wrong because of poor wording.