Yesterday evening I posted this story. Apparently, this morning a fire storm of activity occured. After I got out of church and had lunch with family and friends, I received three emails. I considered how to address this will recap each email below.
Email One at 12:40 p.m.: The new owner asked the writer to have me remove and correct the post that he only bought computers and is giving jobs to a few people.
Email Two at 12:51 p.m. The source apologized that she got the details mixed up. She says she had heard that the Fountain City Focus had bought the Journal. She has since learned that “what he did was buy the equipment and give employees a job. No money went to the owner of the Journal.” I again was asked by her reportedly at the request of the Focus owner to “..tell YOU to take down your post.” “YOU can post that he did the 2 things.” She again says that she was “Sorry, I was told he bought the Journal…I guess it is a matter of phrasing, but that is what happened.”
Email Three at 1:08 p.m. titled “your post makes it sound like I am calling the paper throw away.”
“Your post makes it sound like I endorse your use of “throw away” paper. I hope you will be sure to use a big period before putting my name in that sentence.”
“I did not report it as a throw away.
“Here are the facts and I apologize that I was given incorrect information.”
“I was told “Renee” has “sold the Journal.” It would be more correct to say “Renee closed down the Journal.”
“All that was for sale was a couple of computers and (digitally redact the name XXXXXX) has an option to buy them after checking them out for a week or so. They are Macs and his staff doesn’t use Macs.”
“He may (probably will) give jobs to 3 or 4 employees on a 30 day trial.”
“I hope you will repair your post.”
“Your blog looks great, by the way, Good luck to you.”
An additional like that is not relevant.
