They want their pound of flesh, Pryor really does because I'm sure she thinks the Chiefs organization needs to be cleaned up. I bet if she was off the record she would likely tell you how ****ed up it is we got rid of good guys like Houston and Berry to bring in a shithead like Clark..

I hope he is smart here because she is going to be sniffing around him constantly.

And that's when you whipped out some sick kung-fu action on them?

There are certain circumstances where that's absolutely right. In those cases, the idea is that you can't unring the bell and by taking action to alter it, you're both bringing attention to the violation and tacitly conceding that there was violation in the first place (though there are some evidentiary rules that can sometimes keep out 'remedial acts' as evidence; there are ways around those).

Once some sort of violation has occurred, it's occurred. You have a couple of approaches - concede the violation and look to mitigate the damages, or double down on defending the violation itself in the hopes that you avoid damages outright.

The Star and TV5 are clearly going after the latter. The Star will probably face no legal consequences here because what they've done is shady, but doesn't rise to the level of actual malice, IMO. But TV5 has a pretty damn tough road in front of them. They knowingly published manipulated audio to paint a particular picture. Now they have their stooge out there calling it non-newsworthy and an editorial decision, but I don't think that'll stand.

I think they engaged in textbook defamation. And the moment they apologize for it, they'll have little in the way of a dispute even if it could mitigate some damages for them. But those damages are gonna be big numbers either way in the event defamation is found so rather than attempt to mitigate, they're gonna dig in and attempt to avoid defamation outright.

I don't understand how you can publicly flog someone for stuff they said when they were 13.

But, we encourage this media culture by rewarding them with clicks, mentions, replies, threads on CP, etc.

Even if someone deleted their social media accounts there are still sites out there that catalog it all. For an athlete or a public figure, the only winning move with social media is not to play.

I'm trying to inform you so you don't embarrass yourself -- this "I bet Brooke Pryor wrote this!" crap. Make your arguments more informed so they carry more weight.

It's like saying the Chiefs need to hit more home runs.

When was the last time she did a hit piece on a white player? Did she have a bad feeling about Hardman as well?

They're not telling you what to think, anymore than your opinion on CP is telling us what to think. It's the newspaper's opinion. Readers should be welcomed to disagree with them (unfortunately not all newspapers are that welcoming). It's meant to stimulate debate.

FTR, I think the Star editorial is terrible.

That's because she's trying to determine what he packed for lunch

I'm slowly coming to the realization that that's true for everyone, not just celebrities. Social media seems like a great place to express yourself, but pretty much anything a person says is going to make some people like them more, and others will like them less. And people tend to better remember the things that cause them to like you less.

Add in the fact that there's a media industry these days that's gunning for celebrities, and no celebrity should have a social media presence any more. Just stay quiet, do your job, and live your life behind the walls of your estate.

Tyreek saves a ****ing shit ton of money is what would happen.

I'm just amazed that she attacked a 13 year old kid in the newspaper. That's far past the line of what's acceptable. I hadn't heard about that.

Just seeing if there is a pattern.... you know like poorly veiled racism.
Maybe there just isnt any homer style sports journalism left. It's fine to report on current bad things, but going out of your way to make a problem is just bad.
And lost all respect for Terez coming to her defense.

Some of you don't know what it's like when the female in the relationship is also an abuser. No matter what you say as a man, she will get the benefit of the doubt.

My hunch is that it's driven by sexism, not racism. But there's certainly a racist undertone.

What’s scary is that we’ve essentially ceded control of all of our institutions to these people. These hall monitor / moral crusaders control our media institutions, educational institutions, government agencies, social media firms, HR departments.

We’re at the mercy of the Borg.

Or, she's just a ****

I must state that I support the whole 'metoo' thing to a reasonable (and gender-neutral) extent. There are lots of people out there who abuse power, and the sad truth is that being evil gives people a competitive advantage in reaching powerful positions. So while a lot of powerful people are likely good, I think that evil people are disproportionately represented among those in power, and this is one way to take them down. Bravo for that.

That producer guy in Hollywood is a great example of good results coming out of this mindset. There are other examples of terrible people getting taken down by this movement, and I applaud them. I personally had an experience about ten years ago of witnessing people in power who were absolute monsters, and because they were in positions of power they got away with it. (Financial theft of government funds in one of our suburban counties. Still happening because they control the budget of their local DA and they control the contract of their auditor.) I tried everything to get them exposed and arrested, but they controlled all of the investigative sources.

One challenge, though, is that the movement has become a mushroom hunt now, where amateurs can go out and point fingers. Reporting on a person's social media comments when they were 13 years old is beyond ridiculous. If someone wants to be a real reporter, find the big stories, because the big stories are out there.

The other challenge is that too many people have become extremist, seeing villainy in everyone who doesn't look like them, and are unable to look at the facts. The Tyreek situation is exactly that. Some people drew conclusions based on what they want to see, and they are unwilling to objectively hear new evidence. Combine that with the financial incentives to keep the story going, and you have a problem in the local KC media.

Absolutely right - this is easily the biggest issue here.

I've refused to cheer for Hill since we've drafted him. I've acknowledged his progress as a player, but I've never been willing to fully support a guy who plead guilty to abusing his pregnant girlfriend.

But man, if someone can't listen to that tape and hear the exasperation and outright confusion in his voice when all that was going on, I just don't know what they were listening to. I absolutely entered this fully prepared to believe that Hill is a violent sociopath that abused his child just as he abused his girlfriend but I've also been willing to listen/review some of this stuff for what it is. In the process I've come to believe that there's a possibility that ALL of this is bullshit. And it's probably no worse than a 50/50 shot at that.

The major, major problem here with Pryor, TV5 and the rest of these hatchet-men is that they're completely unwilling to do the same. They refuse to consider the possibility that they were wrong so everything they read/hear is just more evidence that they were right in their eyes.

It's crazy.

Yeah, it reminds you of how Belichick and the Pats started handling the media years ago, only doing the bare minimum. The media is not their friend. The media usually benefit more from saying and reporting on things that hurt the team or sow division in the locker room. The media can't help your team win a Super Bowl, but they can definitely hurt you. Since their interests are not aligned with yours, avoid them.

Of course if you go and create real legal trouble for yourself, you've only yourself to blame. But why run your social media personally when you are a public figure? Let your agent and their PR people post banal updates about your charity work and such, and leave it at that.

Oh that's not hard to answer at all.

Look at how accessible Patrick Mahomes is on his social media and how much people love him for it. If you can keep from stepping on your dick - yeah, you should absolutely run your own account. It's a Q-Rating goldmine.

Patrick is beloved by everyone right now for being by all accounts a great player and a great person, so it's working for him. Most people aren't in such a unique position.

It can definitely help build your brand if it's managed well, no question about that. I just think that if I were an agent advising a young athlete who isn't a Patrick Mahomes, I'd try to get them to let the agency's social media people handle most of it, and get them to stay away from it for the most part as a distraction.

You don't need to be a bad person to cause a huge problem for yourself on social media, even the best people can be caught in a weak moment by an environment that is always trying to provoke and tear people down.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">I rarely do this, but feel it&#39;s important to share this from my <a href="https://twitter.com/TheAthleticKC?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@TheAthleticKC</a> chat today. Forgive me for the few typos, as I write pretty fast during the hour to answer every question.<br><br>We as reporters &amp; media personalities in Kansas City must be better. <a href="https://t.co/MfKXGc8Brx">pic.twitter.com/MfKXGc8Brx</a></p>&mdash; Nate Taylor (@ByNateTaylor) <a href="https://twitter.com/ByNateTaylor/status/1149716221950070784?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 12, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

It's a boom or bust strategy. Some people can do it and win big, but most can't. Maybe you have to be savvy enough to set specific rules about what you will or will not post about, and rigidly stick to them. Patrick seems savvy, and he's got a big-time agent who's likely advising him on a social media policy. So maybe he'll be fine. But I'm at the point now where I'd just rather have guys who play football if they're not a golden god like Patrick Mahomes.

Subscribe to the Athletic, folks.

Nate Taylor's a good egg and a great resource. Spend your $40/yr and stop giving pageviews to these ****ing hacks at the Star.

Refusal to spend money on content is how you get pieces of shit like Pryor.

Jeff Rosen needs to be fired, and the Star has to employ a person who has the situational awareness concerning the demographics they are writing for

Full agreement here.

Just an FYI that I'm sure will send people into a tizzy, he's predicting a suspension for Hill in the 4-6 games range, appealed down.

I like how he can write something that everyone involved in this should be saying yet no one else can, I'm sure that wasn't hard for him to say they all ****ed up and have to be better.

It's going to end up being 2 imo, and from what I've heard.

And what's so galling is that he was probably the most evenhanded of EVERYONE involved in this.

The guy that has arguably the least to apologize for is the only !@#$ing one willing to do it.

Or they could have looked at daface's thread and gotten it for under 15 bucks for the first year on the 4th of July lol

I'm sure that is because anyone not in Kansas City still thinks he broke the kids arm and is a violent monster that should never play again. Unfortunately the NFL cares what these people think.

This isn't true.

I don't live in kc and no one I've talked to here thinks he broke his childs arm

Yep. It's all about public perception.

If he's not suspended or given a light one, then people will blow up the league on social media claiming they continue to be soft on DV.

Where do you live?

Because everything I have seen is casual fans or fans in places like I dunno Seattle don't really know much about this other than what was on ESPN or big time sites which basically just say he's an abusive POS.

Middle mo. Not kc

If you gauge this story anywhere but here basically it's about an 85-15 mark that he shouldn't ever play again and deserves a prison sentence.

He's never going to change those peoples perceptions either but the NFL wants them to buy tickets, it's why I made that comment the other day that we should be ready to embrace being the bad guy because that's what we're about to be.

**** 'em.

**** 'em all...

https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-h59YhxY1T...Bad%2BForm.gif

That's how I feel about it, I know people who don't though. That think "the view of our team is sad and I don't want to win if it means people think this of us"

Kinda sad really.

Is too much to ask that the Chiefs beat reporter care more about the NFL than social justice issues? Oh, and also would be helpful if the beat reporter knew a little about football. The current situation is absurd. The idea that people would pay money to get Brooke Pryor's insights on the Chiefs is a joke.

Right?

I think she should be fired for violating basic rules on vetting, etc...

But even if you don't fire her, this is akin to having Ray Charles as your movie critic. What the **** is Brooke Pryor doing on the Chiefs beat? She doesn't want to be there. Chiefs fans don't want her to be there. She's not a good source for football insight and doesn't particularly care if she is or not.

Why are we continuing to try to ram a square peg into a round hole here? If Rosen's too much of a feckless twat to fire her, fine - reassign her ass. Put someone on the Chiefs beat that loves football and wants to talk about the Chiefs, for ****s sake.

That's exactly how I thought any follow up from the Star, regarding the release of full 11-minute tape, would read. Small-time agenda driven "journalism" at its best.

That approach didn't work for us. Kc is a community team. The fans want to know about the players who then become part of a community. The Star used to be about chiefs news, some opinion, but they also played a huge role in connecting fans to players. We used to joke about puff pieces but they really humanized players. Ivan Carter and eventually terez were great at putting thoughtful analysis. Poz and Merrill were great at the puff pieces. With all that Whitlock was fine being the contrarian. The star has lost their way. They are more interested in getting clicks than they are writing for the fans.

Credentialism is a big problem in this country. So many guys on this board could do a really well as the Chiefs beat reporter, but they don't have a journalism degree. What does Brooke's journalism degree do for us? How is it adding value to what we read? Certainly doesn't seem to be a quality assurance device.

Elizabeth Merrill was hardly a football expert. There's a role for journalists who want to tell stories about our team. So it ain't about that. What Pryor is doing isn't even journalism. It's clickbait. There's no depth to her writing and there's no nuance to it.

This is my big question mark. I recall hearing people grumble about her even before all of this. It seems like being a writer assigned to the Chiefs would be a plum job that would draw qualified candidates who love football. Missouri even has a well-regarded journalism school in Columbia that (I presume) pumps out a lot of Missouri-oriented graduates.

I recognize that newspapers are struggling financially and this job likely doesn't pay well, so they're probably hiring inexperienced people. I get that. But it still seems like a great job for an entry-level person, and I haven't seen anyone post anything from her that's really football specific.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, too. What is her job supposed to be? If she was hired to write puff pieces about the celebrities playing football, then I withdraw my complaints. But I get the impression that she's supposed to be reporting football news. What's the bottom line?

I got that impression as well when teicher was our news guy with totally uninformed opinions who somehow made it to the national stage. He was replaced by some guy who's delivering the same kind of news. In the age of Twitter, totally irrelevant. A far cry from someone like terez or Babb who could deliver that same story with actual substance behind it.

No. The career arc of a sports journalist is why I felt no guilt in giving up on the path six years ago.

If you're not at a premier journo program like Mizzou or Syracuse, you're going to slog your way through writing for your school paper and freelancing or unpaid interning with a local paper. Post graduation you'll be lucky to get a staff role anywhere and you'll probably get stuck in a very small town covering middle school sports as your starting point to maybe monkey bar swing gradually into increasingly bigger markets.

It took the guy I personally know (and who was gracious enough to throw me work and advice) 15 years to make it to the point where he's covering professional sports wherein he spent the better part of a decade in two small to mid-size metro areas in the capacity of an editor/reporter focusing solely on high school prep sports.

Truly an "opinion" piece. A one-sided opinion that completely disregards known facts that contradict that opinion.

That's my biggest issue and why this is a Rosen issue. It's fine to have a negative opinion on tyreek. But there has been enough seeds planted for real journalists to investigate tyreeks side of both stories.

Not even a hint of that. Nobody talking to tyreeks roommate (Carrington Harrison did). His anger management counselors. No one looking into the credibility of the accusers family. The papers job is to present both sides and let the reader draw their own conclusion. If the editorial board still wanted to say they think tyreek is guilty after a fair presentation of both sides, fine. But the way this is handled is a complete hit job from the top down.

Hey........lets do it again...

It’s complicated: Latest turns in Tyreek Hill saga leave more questions than answers
BY VAHE GREGORIAN
JULY 12, 2019 11:59 AM, UPDATED 1 HOUR 32 MINUTES AGO


Unless the murmurs are yet another illusion, any minute now the NFL will rule on the status of Chiefs’ star Tyreek Hill.

Congratulations if you think you know what to think about him and what to expect now. But brace yourself for a trap door ahead falling open into another hall of mirrors.

Because the only thing clear about this whole distressing affair is that it has become defined by its twists and the force-field around it beyond the only two people who really know anything.

And woe be to those like me, who embraced a false flash of clarity in the fog — in my case, in the form of a sensationalized audio snippet.

Probably to a fault, I pride myself on restraint and nuance and taking a step back in this job. If your Mama says she loves you, check it out, I was taught. Don’t go past your own headlights.

But I submitted to a snap judgment on fragmentary information when I heard Hill say “you need to be terrified of me, too, dumb bitch” and then wrote a column with the headline, “If the Chiefs care about honor and decency, Tyreek Hill can’t be part of this team.”

Particularly because they were stated to the woman (Crystal Espinal) Hill has pleaded guilty to abusing in the past, those appalling words still resonate. They make Hill’s presence here loaded and problematic to me.

They still feel like a red line crossed … even if I now can’t quite reconcile what I think the consequence should be when it comes to the player who has essentially been suspended by the Chiefs since the April night that part of the audio was released.

Because of everything else it included, those words just stand out in a different sort of way in the full audio released Tuesday by 610 AM — full audio that reframed the misleading abridged version(s) originally played by KCTV-5. The edited clips muted the reality of Espinal’s repeated goading during the complete audio.

That, though, was just the latest bafflement in this miserable saga made all the more unsavory by misdirection and leaked scraps of truth.

No one in positions of knowledge is speaking publicly with so much at stake for so many and confidentiality at a premium among law enforcement, attorneys and especially the Kansas Department For Children and Families.

Those who do speak might come to regret it, like Chiefs coach Andy Reid did when he mistakenly said in April that Johnson County district attorney Steve Howe had reopened an investigation involving Hill and Espinal and the treatment of their 3-year-old son.

Just the same, Howe inexplicably declined to clarify if the investigation had been reopened when asked by The Star that day in April and at times in between. He finally corrected the record on June 7 … some seven weeks after Reid spoke.

All of this is evoking Orwellian stuff to me, like “how do we know that two and two make four?” and the notion of “doublethink” as “holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.”

Because I don’t know of anything I’ve thought about more in the last few months even as I no longer know what to think as multiple plausible scenarios ricochet around my head.

Confusion reigned from the start when the then-engaged couple in March became involved in investigations of child abuse and neglect by law enforcement and the Kansas Department of Children and Families, leading to the loss of custody of their 3-year-old son.

It’s still not publicly known who has custody of the boy, and Hill and Espinal have an ongoing case with the DCF.

Meanwhile, the latest surprising turn emerged Thursday with the revelation that Espinal had filed a petition in Johnson County seeking to prove Hill is the father of her newborn twins, who are residing with her. The filing also states that Espinal and Hill “are not married, never have been married, and do not intend to be married.”

That would seem a good thing. This is a toxic relationship, going back to a month before the night in December 2014 that led to Hill pleading guilty to domestic assault and battery by strangulation of Espinal. On Nov. 3, Hill called 911 in Stillwater, Oklahoma, because he wanted Espinal out of his apartment amid an argument — a circumstance that was similarly cited by Espinal as the start of the incident on the night that changed both their lives forever.

It was a worrisome thing on many levels when they got back together last year. At the time, Hill appeared on a redemptive track, having completed his three-year deferred sentence from the only notable trouble he’s known to have been in despite growing up in tough circumstances.

Now, in this Bizarro World framework, a #freetyreek crowd has seized on part of the new audio it perceives as Hill proclaiming his innocence in the 2014 incident: He denies picking her up and slamming her, stressing that he “put (Espinal) out my door.” When he asks her repeatedly if he hit her, she doesn’t say yes, but says, “Where did the bruises come from?”

Some in the online courtroom have used that as a springboard to point out that Hill’s then-attorney, Cheryl Ramsey, asked Espinal in the preliminary hearing if she had a history of self-mutilation, cutting herself or bruising herself. Espinal said no to all three before the objection of Espinal’s attorney was sustained by Judge Katherine E. Thomas.

While it’s not remotely an established fact, that sort of unsubstantiated insinuation might make the mind wander.

As might what Hill’s birth father, Derrick Shaw, said in an interview three years ago. The night before the trial was scheduled in August 2015 in Stillwater, Shaw said he believed Hill would fight the charge.


He was stunned to see on SportsCenter the next night that Hill, who grew up with his paternal grandparents, had pleaded guilty.

Shaw said Hill told him that he was advised, either by his then-agent and/or attorney Jay Husbands (who replaced Ramsey when Hill failed to meet “monetary obligations,” The Oklahoman reported) that pleading guilty and accepting the three-year deferred sentence was the best way to make sure he avoided jail.

The family, Shaw said, didn’t want him to do that because they believed in his innocence and anticipated what the plea would mean going forward.

“It’s always going to follow him,” Shaw said in 2016, “and that’s what I don’t want.”

But hold on before you assume all this means, presto, Hill was innocent in 2014.


Even based on his own words on the tape.

Hill didn’t answer Espinal when she asked where the bruises came from, for instance, and the police report from that night observed injuries to her left eye, upper lip, neck and right cheek. To assume Hill didn’t do that it is to assume that Espinal did that all to herself — an ultimate blame-the-victim notion that is unconscionable without serious proof.

Moreover, a domestic violence expert noted that it’s common for abusers to parse their words. For example, Hill doesn’t say how he picked her up and moved her out of the room in a case that later included him confessing to choking her.

But the real point here is that this merely was on a tape made by Espinal, not under oath in a court. And while it’s not unreasonable to consider that Hill could have pleaded guilty even if he weren’t, you also can’t just throw this out:

Four years ago next month, Hill was sworn in at the Payne County Courthouse and asked how he pleaded to the charge of domestic assault and battery by strangulation. After pleading guilty, he was then asked to explain in his own words what he had done to his then-pregnant girlfriend, Espinal.

“I did something that I shouldn’t have done that night, which was I just let my feelings take control of me,” Hill responded. “I wasn’t thinking. I just reacted and hit her, choked her. I’m real sorry for that.”

Whatever else we know and don’t know about what’s happened, and regardless of the legal point that the conviction last year was ordered expunged from his court record, that original plea can’t be unheard and ignored in the context of the menacing words he says on the tape.

In a four-page letter to the NFL defending Hill, Trey Pettlon, Hill’s attorney, called those words “inexcusable” even as he called them inconsistent with Hill’s other recent conversations with Espinal.

For all the other sound and fury, that still hovers over this to me.

As for what should be done about it, pardon me if I’m still thinking about that.



It's apparently super hard to just say, hey I ****ed up.

What got me is the total dismissal of Tyreek's claim of innocence in 2014. Actually, it's worse than that: the writer somehow claims it makes him more of a monster. I understand it's an op/ed -- one written to signal to the coastal elites that not everyone in KC is a domestic abuse apologist -- but it was hardly a reasoned, sober analysis. In fact, it was cringe-worthy. The woman who wrote that is just an unhappy, awful person.

This made me wonder about Brooke's career path, so I looked her up on linkedin. Does anyone want to guess what her first job was?


Wait for it...


Wait for it...


It's worth scrolling...keep going....


Here's the entry for her first journalism job: https://www.linkedin.com/in/brookepryor/


Freelance liveblogger
Company Name Inside Lacrosse
Dates Employed Mar 2012 – May 2012
Employment Duration 3 mos

I covered both men’s and women’s lacrosse games for Inside Lacrosse. I liveblogged a running play-by-play and wrote game recaps afterwards for games featuring UNC-CH and Duke.


Yes, her first journalism job was covering Duke lacrosse.


Now, unlike the KC Star, I'm actually going to investigate this further with a neutral mindset. The false allegations and the big blowup were in the 2006 to 2008 time frame, before she was there. And she was only there for three months. The aftermath according to wikipedia continued all the way into 2014, though.

A star reporter stated this first. I'm guessing Andy ****ed up and thought he could trust the KC media.

You have to consider that almost everyone working in influential positions in the media has far-left political views, and people with those views will see their position as carrying a responsibility to advance 'justice'. They don't feel this is an issue where they are biased or being political, they feel it's a right vs wrong thing and it's their duty to take and advance positions.

Man, what the ****?

In all of these quasi-apologies we get the same tired crap "Well we can't know what happened..." "Well we were misled" "Well there are still too many questions to come to a conclusion..."

THEN ****ING GO DO SOME INVESTIGATIVE REPORTING!!! How the hell is it not your job to go do these things? Why are none of you actually out there pounding the concrete on leads trying to figure out what actually happened instead of just vomiting up someone else's work?

Even now, right this very second, after all this crap has happened - Vahe is still going to the "what do we actually know?" well instead of actually trying to find out what more may actually be knowable.

Holy crap these guys are pathetic. I mean just embarrassing as hell. If this stuff doesn't fall right into their laps, they simply will not do it.

And then they'll throw their hands up and say "How could we have known? What did you expect us to do...work for it?"

I'm really coming to loathe these pricks.

Who wants to edit my shit. It's ready.

The assholes at TV5 and the Star and turning into WWE bad guys. You know they are a joke, but you still hate them anyway.

Vahe should be fired. Period.

“If the Vahe cared about honor and decency, he should resign.”

About to go live. I'll consider any proposed edits.

https://medium.com/@claywendler/if-t...r-c94265079f0c

Sounds like CNN & MSNBC.

Jim Denning's sued the Star for libel

It’s not Forth Worth.

According to wikipedia it is.

Fort Worth Star-Telegram (Fort Worth, Texas)

You see the difference right? You wrote Forth Worth. It is Fort Worth.

Also might want to capitalize law when you say Pettlon Law.

whoops!

Well done. I like the way your sourced your points with concrete examples. Only minor change that I might consider is changing the "loins of Lucifer" comment. That might detract from your argument for some readers. Very minor. Overall, you did an excellent job. A+

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Remember last week, when the NFL offices were pretty much shut down? Not the case today. This is the second punishment handed down to players today ... <a href="https://t.co/d8beXvcEsN">https://t.co/d8beXvcEsN</a></p>&mdash; Jeff Rosen (@jeff_rosen88) <a href="https://twitter.com/jeff_rosen88/status/1149770958330355712?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 12, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

This is one smug asshole

<a href="https://ibb.co/s1Cct0w"><img src="https://i.ibb.co/7pQBbwW/Screen-Shot-2019-07-12-at-3-08-36-PM.png" alt="Screen-Shot-2019-07-12-at-3-08-36-PM" border="0"></a>

Highlighted should be "its". Or maybe even "their".

It's funny. No.

I'm going live at 3:30. I bet I don't get ratio'd like this:

https://i.imgur.com/zQzq3b0.png

This one is pretty harmless, but whatever:

At almost every turn, The Star has decried anything that might fly in the face of their initial reports, which we now know, for a fact, were the result of an attempt by Crystal Espinal to frame Tyreek Hill for a crime.

Aside from your use of the word fact here, which is dubious on its own, I would remove the comma between know and for. “Which we now know for a fact” is the clause.

Very good.

And it's pretty much fact that she framed him. She admitted to making shit up per 810.

Quotes?

Must have missed these comments.

http://www.810whb.com/2019/06/10/whb...reak-sons-arm/

Espinal, according to sources, asked a third party to call authorities and tell them that Hill was responsible for the boy’s injury.

I’m not saying I disagree, I just think it’s arguable, which you confirm when you say it’s “pretty much fact”.

Next edit:

But it was Espinal who weaponized a son against his father. Imagine what might have been published if the reverse had been true

No punctuation at the end of the 2nd sentence.

Very good. Keep em coming.

Doesn't fit the overall tone to my ear. But like I said, minor issue. Would be nice to get 4 or 5 more entries from others. Strength in numbers. And for anyone that didn't read Clay's piece, you can submit your outrage :D here:

[links are live for your convenience]

Tony Berg, the President and Publisher of the KC Star.
[email protected]
[email protected]

Dan Schaub, Corporate Director of Audience Development at McClatchy.
[email protected].

Kevin McClatchy, Chairman of McClatchy.
[email protected]
[email protected].

To voice your concern about what media are allowed access to the Chiefs:
[email protected]

@Ted_Crews

Standard journalism in clown world.

by the way, easier to just post a screenshot

https://i.imgur.com/Y2eHmcJ.png