full text

When is a newscast not a newswatch?

The news business is often an art form.

Each morning a new story is posted on the wire.

The stories are sometimes newsworthy, but they’re not always.

So what happens when a newspaper publishes a new article?

The next day’s headline might read “Newspaper’s article on the death of the Great Dane,” but it may read “The dog died in a car accident.

Now what?

Who cares?”

The media has an obligation to provide context, and when the context is incorrect, it may hurt a story.

Newscasts are an exception.

Many media outlets have a duty to inform readers of events.

But many outlets also report on things that don’t have to be newsworthy.

And when the media misreports a story, it can have a serious impact on how we view news.

To be sure, the news business has a reputation for being highly professional, but it also has an awful track record.

It’s easy to see why people find the media to be a dangerous place.

And it’s even easier to see how people might find themselves in a place where the media is so badly misreporting stories that are of a public health or medical nature.

The Washington Post’s recent article about the state of the dog’s fur industry was one of those stories.

The story’s title was, “The death of a great Dane, a new way to breed dogs.”

But the article wasn’t really about the death, but rather the death itself.

The first half of the article was a summary of recent developments.

It said the death was due to a brain hemorrhage and not to a “mortality syndrome.”

The article then went on to report that a company, Aventis, was making the dogs, and that they had been raised in captivity.

The second half of The Post’s story was about the dogs.

The title was “Dog in the tank died in car accident.”

It described the dog as being in a “very bad condition” and said the owners of the dogs were now being sued for their actions.

The article also quoted a person who was “shocked” by what he saw.

He told the paper that the dogs had been “reared in cages.”

The next sentence, in the middle of the story, read, “In a lawsuit filed in state court, Avets is accusing the owners, Avis A. & F.P., of intentionally killing the dogs to sell their fur at an inflated price.”

And it went on.

“The dogs were in the same tank as a large dog they had recently brought to Aventi’s facility, which had been recently renovated, and they were suffering from various ailments,” the article continued.

“They had been in captivity for three years, with no one to care for them.

They were on the verge of starvation, which was why they were being shipped to the U.S. to be bred and sold for their fur.”

The article did not make any reference to the fact that Aveis was sued, nor did it describe any of the issues surrounding the dogs’ care.

Avei is the name of the company that breeds and maintains the dogs in question.

The fact that the story was based on a single, anonymous source in the news industry was troubling enough.

But the fact it was based solely on an anonymous source was even more concerning.

A large part of what makes a newspaper or magazine a good source of news is the fact you have to know someone, so you know who to trust.

The media has no such obligation to report the truth.

The Post, however, had no problem with that anonymous source.

It used the article to make claims about the health of the German shepherd.

And those claims were false.

The dog’s health was actually worse than it appeared in the story.

The dog was suffering from a severe respiratory condition that caused it to cough up more air than usual.

That’s normal.

But when the dog had been housed in a small enclosure for several years, it was exposed to too much oxygen.

In addition, the dog was getting too much salt from the environment.

The problem was that the article made the case that the owners had been negligent in raising the dogs and had been selling the dogs at an unreasonable price.

That was the basis for the lawsuit.

And the owners were being sued because they didn’t know that their dogs were being bred to sell at a price that would result in a death.

That wasn’t what the article said at all.

The story made the following statements about the German Shepherd’s health.

First, the story says the dog died after contracting pneumonia.

It did not say that the dog contracted pneumonia.

The only way to establish whether a dog contracted the disease was to look at the dog.

The problem with this is that the pneumonia was caused by exposure to oxygen, not by the dogs breathing.

Second, the article says the dogs died because of the owners