Here's the Kranz version of the Giago pull-out story. It mentions a "Black Hills meeting" but says nothing about it or what it means. It's a dangling phrase completely devoid of context or significance. Now see the Washington Post story, which mentions that Giago "said that he wanted Daschle to open dialogue on returning the sacred Black Hills to the tribes of the Sioux Nation." Doesn't this seem like a rather large omission from the Kranz story? Here's the Washington Times story pubished an hour ago, which also mentions the return of the Black Hills angle.
UPDATE: Here's a new version of the story, which doesn't include the information about the Black Hills that was in the Washington Post story, but it does include the denial that such information is true! Also, the article quotes Thune's campaign manager saying that Russell Means supports Thune. This endorsement, arguably one of top three stories of the Senate race so far, has never been reported by the Argus news staff. Isn't that a rather obvious omission? The Rapid City Journal and the Associated Press wrote long stories, but the Argus ignored it.
Comments