Exactly! I couldn't stand him at all---he acted like the whole trial was a big damn joke or something, and the thing is, the Daily Mail is nothing but a big fat tabloid anyway. So he had a lot of nerve calling himself a "journalist". A REAL journalist would have double-checked the facts and tried to uncover some new ones about the case---but this dude had the nerve to say he couldn't be bothered to make sure the facts of the stories he was reporting on were true---uh, that's what REAL journalists are supposed to do--that's their job. This dude was a joke---honestly, the director could have found somebody better to interview--like a REAL journalist, not some tabloid hack who just threw whatever bull**** he could in his so-called article just to sell the paper. Really, disgusting, tacky, and tasteless.
reply
share