Your article is nearly as appalling as the story itself. The writers
imply in the first line (it took the whole staff to write this slanted
piece of trash) that the baby died as a result of a dog eating it.
In the SECOND HALF of the article, it's revealed that the mother said the
baby was born dead, and later that that fact is unknown. Now you know why
journalists rank second only to lawyers as being the scummiest scumbags
on the planet.
The authors *want* to have a story about a LIVE baby that's eaten to
death. So PRESTO, let's write that kind of article. But to cover our
asses, will stick in that stuff about the truth at the end. You sloppy,
misleading, hype-mongers.
Go to my site. Maybe you'll learn something.
http://savethehumans.com
