A Message from DCI CEO Dan Acheson

[garfield]

36 minutes ago, MusicManNJ said:

How do you know it was "perfunctory"? Reporters ask questions from an interviewee to gain insight to validate or refute info they may have. 

It was perfunctory because without planning to release any new information, it took just minimal effort or reflection to accurately presume the response she actually got.

 

[JimF-LowBari]

And anybody knows what the reporter is referring to or is going to write about... how?

[tesmusic]

I find it peculiar that Dan is criticized on here, and by the "journalist" for commenting on the upcoming story, and not speaking with reporters, but there is no criticism of law enforcement for not commenting? Seems oddly one-sided, IMO. I'm not praising Dan in the least, but it would be nice if there was some balance to the criticism/comments.

[JimF-LowBari]

56 minutes ago, tesmusic said:

I find it peculiar that Dan is criticized on here, and by the "journalist" for commenting on the upcoming story, and not speaking with reporters, but there is no criticism of law enforcement for not commenting? Seems oddly one-sided, IMO. I'm not praising Dan in the least, but it would be nice if there was some balance to the criticism/comments.

criticism of law enforcement for not commenting or criticism of not reporting to law enforcement? Law enforcement does not have to comment at all and in some cases that’s a good idea if still investigating 

[NewToPosting]

7 hours ago, garfield said:

This is just the first 10 pages of this thread.

And Dan A is accused of "fueling speculation".  Unbelievable.

And a reporter saying "A story is coming but it's not ready" is not fueling speculation?

The reporter didn't say anything.  Dan A "broke" the news that a story was coming out.  Maybe it is, maybe it isn't.  It seems like there's not a new story, at least not one developed enough to come out now.  Had Dan not done this, we would have woken up today to more news about how Hopkins managed.  Instead there's 42 pages of opposing sides on whether it's a good idea for the Executive Director of DCI to try to quell unease around a story that hasn't been released.  I stand by my original statement.  It was ill-advised of him to do that, regardless what his intentions were.

[Jeff Ream]

4 hours ago, cixelsyd said:

No.  What Acheson referenced was this:

 

so this article just muddies the waters

[MikeD]

27 minutes ago, Jeff Ream said:

so this article just muddies the waters

The new article today refers to the final report by YEA from the law firm they hired. Dan appears to be talking about something else entirely, from reading the subject matter he mentioned. Any mud in the water is not on Dan; he was  up front about what he was told. 

[rmm155]

I think this is "a" story from Tricia, not "THE" story that Dan A was foreshadowing.  Mainly, because this is still GH specific and not multiple people over multiple corps.  Plus, usually, there's the sentence of "we contacted so and so from DCI and they declined to comment on the story" included, and that wasn't mentioned.  Though, none of this story is particularly surprising.  

[Jeff Ream]

4 hours ago, garfield said:

I'm not subscribing.  Copy/paste, please.

Thanks

i dont subscribe and i can see it fine, but my work computer won't allow the cut and paste

[cixelsyd]

51 minutes ago, NewToPosting said:

The reporter didn't say anything.  Dan A "broke" the news that a story was coming out.  Maybe it is, maybe it isn't.  It seems like there's not a new story, at least not one developed enough to come out now.  Had Dan not done this, we would have woken up today to more news about how Hopkins managed.  

No, it would have been like this:

GH used to throw things.  See, another story Dan Acheson failed to get out in front of.  He should resign immediately, or be fired.