Wow, lots here but a big takeaway: Globe and Mail just took a pretty unsubtle shot at Global.
The Globe basically saying here without saying: We got Global's intel *first* AND without more it didn't meet our standards, but met theirs.
1/
theglobeandmail.com/politics/artic… #cdnpoli
The Globe basically saying here without saying: We got Global's intel *first* AND without more it didn't meet our standards, but met theirs.
1/
theglobeandmail.com/politics/artic… #cdnpoli
When the Globe says it didn't report on the talk because it couldn't get a transcript/tape recording to authenticate what actually happened, that's basically saying we're not taking sources at their word. I dont think that's necessarily inferring Global is, but..2/
#cdnpoli
#cdnpoli
It is sort of laying it out its own and saying, this didn't meet our smell test. Global is acknowledging how sensitive this is and standing pat. They would have a team that recognizes all of this... and still decided to publish. They know have a lot on the line. #cdnpoli 3/
But this is quite the not-so-direct, but also direct rebuke from their primary competitor on this story, which raises the stakes even more for them to be right and the editorial team knows that.
As for the story, another little wrinkle...4/
As for the story, another little wrinkle...4/
The Globe says that when they first approached Dong last month, he said he didn't recall the chat, but that in any chat, he always called for their release. But he told Global he initiated the talk. There could be a bunch of explanations for it..5/
Maybe he looked through this phone or email after the Globe approached and it showed something about him setting something up. And then when Global came calling, he had confirmed he prompted it. Or maybe it was customary for him to do it. 6/
Regardless, as has been the case a lot here, we still have so many more questions than answers.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
