Posted // January 21,2011 at 11:48 - Jesse, Thanks for your response; I do respect what you're saying. I only question the facts of your story because I've heard stories about Whalen (think Sham-Wow guy on steriods) which makes me question the credibility of any "news" he is associated with. Otherwise, I love City Weekly and appreciate you taking the time to follow up with your story. LY

 

Posted // January 19,2011 at 15:00 - Hey Linda, that's fair criticism, but facts change and I'd ask you for some patience as news develops. When I first spoke to Whalen, he believed he had his agreement with Rio Tinto squared away, there wasn't any particular reason to doubt him, and thus it was reported. Shortly after, representatives from Rio Tinto did confirm that negotiations had occurred and that at least one game at RT was likely, but did not believe, as Whalen did, that the agreement was settled. I updated the post, reporting that hesitance from RT representatives. After that update was posted, the two parties privately discussed the issue further and Whalen again walked away confident in his announcement that his team would play at RT and asked me to correct the story (leading to the second update). I think it's prudent both for me and readers to remain open-minded to any eventual outcome until things are moved from the "developing" category into the "history" category. The news changes, evolves and develops as we report it--sometimes precisely because we reported it. I think that's what happened here. Final thought: If you want the news only to report stories that can not and will not change or evolve, then the news will only be reporting history. But we're committed to bringing you the news of the day, which requires both us and news consumers to remain nimble and open to developments.