03.08.2012 07:20 PM

Fryer apologizes


So, was that interview he gave total bullshit, then? Is the paper going to apologize, too?


  1. catherine says:

    What’s strange about his apology is he says his statements “were not intended to imply”, not that his statements were not factually correct. He doesn’t withdraw any statement he made, but makes a claim about lack of intent. Also he apologizes for any distress, not for any statements he made. Is this typically sufficient to make someone withdraw a threat of a defamation lawsuit?

  2. wow says:

    It was more a clarification rather than an apology. He didn’t retract anything he said. In the absence of proof he opens himself up to a defamation lawsuit, where the burden of proof lies with the person who made the initial comments– without a recording he can just get sued. His ‘apology’ just clarifies that he isn’t implying they did anything illegal, but that doesn’t negate that what he said happened, I think most people see that.

  3. Curt says:

    Sometimes people just gets too caught up in the hype.

  4. bigcitylib says:

    Sounds like he was forced to apologize for stuff he didn’t actually say.

    The article itself has been altered by a couple of lines (in bold). That’s it so far from them.

  5. MP says:

    Oh come on, it’s patently obvious that Fryer has been SLAPP’d.

    That’s what the words “at your request” mean and Andrew Wudrick is a lawyer.

    The letter doesn’t disavow Fryer’s description of the seminar he attended. Rather, it only clarifies that his comments were not meant to allege that Kouvalis or Campaign Research suggested unethical / illegal campaign or election tactics.

    At the end of the day, people will make up their own minds about whether voter suppression is unethical. And whether or not the Conservatives or Campaign Research engaged in voter suppression is a matter that remains of interest.

    All this letter tells me is that Fryer doesn’t want to get sued.

  6. Patrick Deberg says:


    It’s called Libel chill and can be very effective. Just ask Conrad Black.

  7. catherine says:

    With this apology and the added bolded lines by the reporter, one is now left with the impression that no one is disputing Fryer’s description of the workshop and the question/answer/discussion that followed. That is that the organizers discussed robocalls and keeping track of non-supporters and then participants discussed what most people would think are unethical (possibly illegal) practices (pretending to be from a different campaign in order to suppress the vote) but there is no statement that the organizers/company themselves made these suggestions or condoned these suggestions.

    From the description, included the added bolded, it seems possible that the organizers stood by silently during these particular discussion, as there is also no indication that the organizers spoke out against such practices. Would others agree?

  8. smelter rat says:


Leave a Reply to catherine Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *