Submitted by Guesttoo (not verified) on Fri, 01/13/2012 - 8:17pm.
Thank you for taking the time to not answer my (very) simple question. I was really hoping that a legit news person would answer. Your number 4 and number 5 have a really, really tough time working together. You ask; "Which is it?" and it's only fair that you are asked the same question. If she had (in your words) all kinds of "issues and legal problems against her" (#5)...how could she have been hired (#4)?
Which one is it, 4 or 5?
No clue who this person (Cox? Grant?) is, other what has been reported (lightly) in this...and (more extensively) other media outlets.
From another media outlet, this person's history just sounds fishy. Entirely possible that a "smear campaign" has been launched against her but, either way, it sounds like an integral part of the Leland story and it's not being addressed by WWAY.
Question Remains the same
Thank you for taking the time to not answer my (very) simple question. I was really hoping that a legit news person would answer. Your number 4 and number 5 have a really, really tough time working together. You ask; "Which is it?" and it's only fair that you are asked the same question. If she had (in your words) all kinds of "issues and legal problems against her" (#5)...how could she have been hired (#4)?
Which one is it, 4 or 5?
No clue who this person (Cox? Grant?) is, other what has been reported (lightly) in this...and (more extensively) other media outlets.
From another media outlet, this person's history just sounds fishy. Entirely possible that a "smear campaign" has been launched against her but, either way, it sounds like an integral part of the Leland story and it's not being addressed by WWAY.
So, the un-answered question remains the same.