It was amazing (not in a good way) to see GA send fixers in and get the writer on the systemic coverup of sexual abuse and rape at GA fired from the AJC. The AJC must have been threatened by advertisers and worked by city and state officials to fold like that. There is no way the editors and probably even someone from the publishing office did not review the articles before they were printed. They all stayed.
The smear job they did on the reporter consisted in only two facts, according to the AJC's own article. (1) The reporter combines two quotes into one in a way that did not affect the substance of the quotes. And (2) the exact number of 11 incidents was not establish beyond doubt. But whether 5 or 11 or 17 makes no difference to the substance of the case that there was repeated and systemic corruption and fixing.
In fact, shutting down the AJC appears to be yet another instance of fixing. The original articles pointed out that UGA used attorneys as fixers. In the AJC's review, UGA's lawyers joined the editorial review.
The sleight of hand was to replace the issue of system and repeated fixing with the red herring of the exact number 11, which was impertinent. One might even just as well doubt that there were that few instances to be uncovered if the investigation continued. The other sleight of hand was the AJC cancelling the entire project. That is again a sleight of hand: it could be carried on by other means. One suspects that the AJC management wanted the investigation stopped as well. Funny that it was announced the day after Kirby spoke at the SEC Meeting when he could have been questioned on the issue by journalists from elsewhere. Was it a coincidence that the subject of moving the SEC Championship game from Atlanta arose at the same meeting? Was that a bargaining chip? If so the AJC likely already agreed to keep their "investigation" silent until after Kirby spoke.
It was amazing that so many people simply bought the new revised story and jumped on the bandwagon of blaming "journalistic malpractice" without thinking it through. It seems to me completely immoderate and one-sided to quickly seize on the AJCs new story, and without even impartially considering, at the least, the import of the two facts I mention in my second paragraph. Those are the AJC's only facts cited in their own article "explaining" why the reporter was fired, without explaining why none of the editors or representatives of management were fired. Now, so-called fact checks being so essential to propaganda, perhaps there is another thing they might fault the report with, now held in reserve. But all we have is the AJC's own news story about their about-face. One would not be surprised to find out, just in case anyone were ever to attempt to look into the matter, that all of the reporters notes at home and in the office were seized by the attorneys as work product and would prevent anyone from examining them. Which is what a fixer would do. Who is to say they would not lose some of them or make additions? But maybe it wasn't exactly 11 instances is crazy bizarre.
Are they suggesting that 10 rapes and assaults or maybe 7 was ok, but 11 was over the line? I guess no one is supposed to read the AJC article with care and consider its details.
about 10 times in a normal visit...
on the condition that he never speak of the matter. Insofar as I know he has not spoken a word. Seems like he would have a tough time finding a job at the moment. But then again, people claim he committed all sorts of prior offenses in Louisville, yet the AJC hired him. Of course there are few if any local papers anymore, which is terrible for the country imo. Gannett could prolly send him somewhere if they wanted to. Maybe he has a job working beside some player's dad somewhere. 
