Originally Posted by
MichaelCorfman
To be clear, the original video was referred to me on the grounds that the managing editor previewing it before public posting believed it portrayed some information as facts where it was premature to draw such a conclusion based on what J.Todd or we knew at the time. I'd like to be clear that J. Todd has almost unlimited editorial freedom (I believe it has been years since a video has been referred to me for any reason), and that is the way I want it. However, based on what I was told, I did conclude the original video contained some content presented as fact where that was inappropriate based on what was known to us at the time. So I requested that the video be revised so that the one narrow area where there were factual questions could be further researched.
Michael