Gee, this was deserving of a "retraction". If this standard were applied
to all, we could have an hour of "All Retractions Considered" every
morning on NPR. My point is that NPR's arm was twisted real hard for them
to have to "correct" this. Of course, thanks to West, we also know that
the Minneapolis Star Tribune wrote its series on West involvement in the
federal judiciary because the Star Tribune was going to go into
competition with West in the on-line business ... and, for that they
risked alienating the entire federal judiciary.
I do not believe that ... do you think that was the motivation of the
Star Tribune.
As to who twisted NPR's arm call, start with the initial V.W.
By the way, how DID you get the West brief so quickly? I got my copy by
pestering John Lederer with six telephone calls and he finally sent me a
copy so I would get off his back.
Alan Sugarman
HyperLaw
sugarman@panix.com
On Tue, 28 Mar 1995, Chick wrote:
>
> The quote from the NPR correction concerning Bob Oakley is as follows:
>
> "In one case, however, a law librarian who commented on the issue, was not
> adequately identified as being active in promoting a government-financed
> system."
>
> I could find no other mention of Bob Oakley in the retraction.
>
> The full-text of the correction and the original transcript are available
> in the NPR file, NEWS library, on LEXIS.
>
> Cindy Chick
> Graham & James
> Los Angeles, CA
>
>
> On Tue, 28 Mar 1995, Karl Gruben wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 28 Mar 1995, Alan Sugarman wrote:
> >
> > > Perhaps, Mr. Gruben, you can explain how West "persuaded" National Public
> > > Radio to make its retraction which included a wholly inaccurate and
> > > gratuitious attack on Mr. Oakley.
> > >
> > Haven't a clue, Alan. Haven't seen the retraction. Why did they make
> > one, anyone told you?
> > Karl
> >
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 03/09/00 PST