The following is a legal update to a previous news analysis and article.
The blogger who publishes information and propaganda under the name "FTVLive" has published the a full retraction statement regarding his defamatory article falsely claiming I am "anti-vaccine."
As part of the new article, blogger Scott Jones, attempts to defend the false and defamatory material he initially published citing anonymous "sources," and then publishes a great deal of vaccine industry propaganda to try to support his indefensible position.
But he did publish the following retraction as requested by my attorney:
“despite a previous report, Sharyl Attkisson is not anti-vaccine, and it is public knowledge that she has received many vaccinations as an adult. Her reporting on vaccine and prescription drug safety has been recognized with an Emmy nomination and a nomination from the Investigative Reporters and Editors group. She has not discussed Sinclair company policy on vaccines with executives, nor has she made any attempt to sway such a policy. We regret that we did not reach out to her to fact check our story prior to publication and regret the error.”
In the article where Jones printed the retraction, he backs off the ludicrous false claim that he had attributed to a supposed anonymous source who "wondered" if I had somehow convinced Sinclair management not to announce a Covid-19 vaccination policy.
Jones now clarifies:
"As for her talking to Sinclair management about the vaccine, we did not claim that happened and have no knowledge of that happening. Also, the Sinclair employee that was cited in the story, also has no knowledge of that happening, and as stated in our report, the employee 'wonders' if that happened."
The blogger exposes himself as using the most unjournalistic of practices: a propaganda technique in which he smears somebody with unsupported rumor or innuendo without contacting the source for comment, and then defends the defamation by stating, I never said it happened or I said I thought it happened, somebody just wondered if it happened.
The blogger clearly doesn't understand libel and defamation law and seems to believe as long as he publishes an opinion attributable to some alleged source, that it legally defensible.
Of course, that is untrue.
We are still communicating with the other offender who published the defamatory information: NewsBlues.