Dear Mark,

why is it that each time when I post a precise and factual message here, asking you about misleading errors in your paper's reporting, these questions never get answered and are taken off this site. These questions are strictly factual and very respectful in tone. Do you only reply to questions that you can easily answer?

 

I'm terribly sorry. Can you please post the message again and I'll be happy to respond.

Thanks

 

Here is one random example, Mark. Nigel's last article strongly implies that Commissioner Leonard has recently been in favor of a larger bridge out of spite he has against the Mayor. Nigel hints that Mr. Leonard is taking revenge for his disappointment with the mayor upon the citizens who elected him to the office. I assume that your paper has evidence of Mr. Leonard deplorable motives (there is no such evidence in the article). Could you please present it?

 

Here is another example of your unusual method of "reporting": the recent essay on Mr. Breedlove's interview given to the Logo channel contained the YouTube link to ... a CBS news item about the scandal. Mr. Breedlove's interview was very supportive of the mayor, but the CBS report was accusatory in tone. How could the latter illustrate the former? It struck many people as a misleading trick.

 

Today's story about some education person's resignation from the City Hall contains the textbook case of logical fallacy "Post hoc ergo propter hoc" (after that means because of that). The article presents no evidence whatsoever that this official changed jobs because of the Breedlove story, just innuendo. How can you then be surprised that your "reporting" on Mayor Adams is seen as a campaign against him?