So she supposedly interviewed an american couple that "just moved there" and "didn't want photos used", and don't have names.
Bullshit! They don't exist.
This is the poorest told backpedaling cover-up lie I've heard in a while. What about all the other made-up shit in the article?
Let her give evidence that they actually exist, or retract the entire article as a fraud.
That's all an actual journalist could do at this point. This doesn't make me mad so much because it insults a hobby (furries), but because it's such unethical journalism. It sounds almost like a case to sue for defamation, with Poppy as witness for the damage- to make a statement to other newspapers not to print made-up bullshit without labeling it as fiction.
So she supposedly interviewed an american couple that "just moved there" and "didn't want photos used", and don't have names.
Bullshit! They don't exist.
This is the poorest told backpedaling cover-up lie I've heard in a while. What about all the other made-up shit in the article?
Let her give evidence that they actually exist, or retract the entire article as a fraud.
That's all an actual journalist could do at this point. This doesn't make me mad so much because it insults a hobby (furries), but because it's such unethical journalism. It sounds almost like a case to sue for defamation, with Poppy as witness for the damage- to make a statement to other newspapers not to print made-up bullshit without labeling it as fiction.