Occasionally I read an article online that drives me to contact the reporter that wrote it. This is one of them. https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/21/polit...cks/index.html A portion of it below.
Half the article was trash and I told the reporter so; but politely of course. :) I offered to answer any questions she had and asked if she intended to correct the errors in the article.
I normally don't get a reply when challenging a reporter's claims and I also had to guess at the e-mail address by using lastname.firstname@cnn.com. I always include my name city/state and phone number. Surprise surprise, six minutes later I got a reply. It said "thanks for your input". I don't think I'll be seeing a correction.
Ranb
Quote:
|
The Colt AR-15, the style of gun on which the Parkland shooting weapon was based, was among those outlawed for 10 years under the 1994 law but is now legal. Even under the ban, manufacturers of guns used loopholes to continue being able to produce guns very similar to the AR-15 by changing details on the weapon or changing its name. But they weren't always legal to buy and sell. |
I normally don't get a reply when challenging a reporter's claims and I also had to guess at the e-mail address by using lastname.firstname@cnn.com. I always include my name city/state and phone number. Surprise surprise, six minutes later I got a reply. It said "thanks for your input". I don't think I'll be seeing a correction.
Ranb
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire