Right, because Newt Gingrich cheating on his wife while impeaching Clinton for his infidelities is in nooooo way hypocritical.

I'm sorry if I misunderstood your request for comparison. My POV's pretty simple.- Flynn lied. When confronted about the lie - BigJ instead of taking down the article continuied to defend it.

compassion? For who? The victim? I've got tons. For Flynn who lied about his death to advance his agenda - none. And neither should you

Actually, it was miles away. Not blocks. And it was a robbery that had nothing to do w/#occupy. But please, keep defending this fallacy of an article.

It's really not that frantic Joel. I wrote the same text here to see how your readers would respond. I wrote to you for the same reasons. The fact is, you continued to lie and practice some seriously shameless intellectual dishonesty. That's really not news to Boehlert/Shriver.

No. That's not true. Flynn wrote: "This afternoon, #OccupySavannah, through its Facebook page, announced the murder of an activist at the #Occupy camp"

That's a lie.

I didn't assume anything. Flynn did. Occupysavannah just said that Brezell was shot and killed. Nowhere in the FB post does it say the incident happened at #occupy. Flynn made it up. In that respect, you're right. It's just like what Breitbart did to Sherrod. He lied.

One - it was from facebook. And two, the FB posting didn't say he was murdered at #Occupy. Flynn made it up/assumed. That's the problem

1. Here's the reason for taking it down - keeping an article up to about crime at OWS in a place/about an incident where the crime had nothing to do with #occupy diminishes the argument - and yes, there's a valid conversation to be had about crime at #OWS. This story, isn't it. Mr. Flynn is certainly free to re-write his piece using all the other incidents of crime as the basis for his opinion. At a minimum, the headline "Murder at Occupy" needs to be altered b/c it's not true

2. What I'm saying is the timeline doesn't support his assertion. A facebook post went up. The facebook page said nothing about a murder at #occupy - Flynn either assumed or made it up. Two hours later, Flynn's article went up. The fact that the murder occured elsewhere was readily available on Monday. That's not being careful. That's jumping to a conclusion that fits a narrative Flynn supports. The fact that he's editor-in-chief makes it all the more egregious. And if CNN/NBC whoever engaged in the same sloppy journalism, I'd have the same reaction.

3. Yeah, but the story has nothing to do w/MMfA . Pollak claims Boehlert pushed the story to distract from the Pelosi/Bachus CC story. Where's the evidence to back that up? It's fact-free speculation. If I were trying to correct a story in which a journalist engaged in fact-free speculation (like Flynn did) I don't think I'd do the same thing not 4 paragraphs later. Right?

4. Please, it's not a general observation. You're implying that w/o OccupySavannah, police could have stopped the murder. You don't throw a "general observation" at the end of a retraction unless there's a point you're trying to make. If you want to say, "the murder wouldn't have happened if the cops weren't busy at #occupy," ,go ahead, but it's a crock. Cops don't stop crimes in the act - unless your knowledge of police work (and my uncles and cousin are both cops, so I know a little about it) consists of reruns of Adam-12.

That thought through enough for you, Larry?

Evidently Big Journalism is blocking my replies. Way to foster open dialogue!

Here's the problem Mr. Pollack.

1. The article should be taken down. The "Opinions" are reflective of a fact that isn't true. Say Flynn had written an article about how the moon is made of cream cheese and we should invest heavily in restarting the manned NASA missions to the moon so all Americans could have free cream cheese. If it was later revealed that the moon is not, in fact, made of cream cheese, then Flynn's opinion about restarting NASA would be pointless, b/c it was based on a fallacy. That's what's going on here.

2. The headline was/is: “Breaking: Facebook Posting Reports Murder at #OccupySavannah.” That's incorrect. Facebook didn't report that. They reported the murder of someone who had been at #OS. Nowhere in the FB post does it say where it occurred. You lament the "difficulty in reporting breaking news." Well, yeah, it's hard work. Sometimes you have to take more than TWO HOURS after the FB post goes up before you write an opinion piece based on facts that are not confirmed (That's how long it took before Flynn's article went up_. If Flynn is the editor-in-chief of BigGov't, shouldn't part of his job description involve being EXTRA-careful that a story has all the facts confirmed before a piece is published?

3. You spend 2/3rds of this retraction attacking mediamatters. You realize that MMfA pointed out Flynn's error and the subsequent lack of retraction. That's not an "attack," it's what happened. You also state he only pointed it out to deflect attention from the Pelosi story. I assume you have some facts or knowledge or an informant who can back this up. Because if not, it's speculation on your part. I'm not sure if you, Mr. Pollak, are aware, but speculating wildly in a correction for an article whose author engaged in wild, fact-free speculation (and in which you attack MMfA for speculating w/o the facts to back it up re: O'Keefe/Univ. Missouri) is a staggering act of cognitive dissonance

4. At the end of this retraction in which you express regret/sadness for Brazell's murder you imply that it's STILL OccupySavannah's fault Brazell died by writing, "the chaos at the Occupy protests–which has, in places, diverted police away from neighborhoods they normally protect." That's not an apology - that's doubling-down.