AP Covers Up Invention of Imaginary Pruitt Meeting. They will never stop

quote:

---

The Associated Press, relying on schedules provided by the Environmental Protection Agency, reported erroneously that EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt met with Dow Chemical CEO Andrew Liveris for about a half-hour at a Houston hotel. A spokeswoman for the EPA says the meeting listed on the schedule was canceled, though Pruitt and Liveris did have a “brief introduction in passing.”

---

So the EPA had the meeting listed, and didn't correct the record that it was "canceled" but then admits they

quote:

---

She said Pruitt and Liveris did have a “brief introduction in passing” at the energy conference in Houston they were both attending.

---

. So instead of the formal meeting that was on the record, they had a "brief introduction in passing" which could be anything,

AP was right to correct it, acting like this was some egregious made up story is ridiculous.

quote:

---

so you are putting this on the EPA?

---

No. I'm saying that the EPA had a meeting listed on the official record, so reporting on that meeting, is not making up an imaginary meeting. But what I do take an issue with is their coy remark that "they had a brief introduction." So basically the brief formal meeting didn't occur, but a brief informal meeting occurred, but it's some how passed off as not occurring because of their cleverly vague wording.

Maybe it was merely a few seconds, but maybe it wasn't. Either way, with the official record indicating a formal meeting scheduled, AND the disclosure of an informal meeting, then the story was not made up. A correction was necessary, but the Brietbart accusation is egregious in and of itself. Of course, that's what you get with a hack publication and a conflict of interest.

Edit: After realizing the EPA released the record 3 months after the meeting was scheduled, and failed to correct it despite an FOIA request, I put a lot of blame on them.

quote:

---

So basically the brief formal meeting didn't occur, but a brief informal meeting occurred, but it's some how passed off as not occurring because of their cleverly vague wording.

---

Given that clearly, the AP didn't know the details of the meeting, wouldn't it be fair to say that

quote:

---

and then alleged that some kind of impropriety happened as a result.

---

was a lie

It's starting to look like more retractions than actual stories..,

quote:

---

It's starting to look like more retractions than actual stories..,

---

This. AP is on a roll today retracting all their fake news.

quote:

---

They didn't allege impropriety

---

Yes they did...

quote:

---

Of course, that's what you get with a hack publication and a conflict of interest.? 

---

You dickheads (like MButterfly) who post only a laughing emoji in response to a post are just showing everyone that you are too ignorant to even attempt to make any kind of an intelligent response.

Why don't you grow up or GTFO.

quote:

---

So instead of the formal meeting that was on the record, they had a "brief introduction in passing" which could be anything,

---

That is usually something along the lines of, "Hello, my name is John Smith!" Hi, "I'm Bob Jones!" "Nice to meet you!" "Nice to meet you!"

quote:

---

AP was right to correct it, acting like this was some egregious made up story is ridiculous.

---

Well, if they insinuate something hinckey is going on, then no, it isn't ridiculous.

ETA
THIS is what makes it not ridiculous:

alleged that some kind of impropriety happened as a result.

quote:

---

Not bad. They were pretty good nationally, but had some state issues that seemed to be a result of correlated error. Hopefully it revealed a diagnosable problem to avoid those errors in the future.

---

Yeah, but it's those state things that get people elected, isn't it? So, the polls got the part that does not good, and missed the part that actually matters.

quote:

---

Clearly one can infer impropriety, but listing facts that lead to one's inferencing (possibly incorrectly as it's leading toward the Post Hoc Fallacy) of impropriety is solely on the individual interpreting that allegation

---

Dear Lord. The AP knew it was driving the perception

Just stop