The article I posted is not a press releases. A reporter from Reuters interviewed Hecker. And there would be another side of the story if 19 and Adam were willing to talk, but for whatever reason, they are keeping mum.

Of course you are correct.

My feeling on this arise that while its understood it’s from a “news,” piece from Reuters, it seems to be presenting as facts to this issue, that have only come from a HiFi press release. Examples: “Before he became a household name, the flamboyant singer spent three years recording songs for Los Angeles-based Wilshire Records.” They aren’t quoting this as part of Heckler’s statements, the only quotation marks are from mine taking it from the article itself. This is part of this article’s presenting this three years, as an understood timeframe. When we know the “three years,” is from the HiFi press releases. We also know that Adam’s press release disputes that timeframe, so using it as an understood matter of course within this article, and not an atttributable quote from one side of a dispute, is to me, using parts of a press release, as part of a news story.

Same with the quote “Lambert co-wrote nine of the songs, working mostly with Madonna’s guitarist, Monte Pittman,” as anything other than something that should be attributed soley to Heckler/HiFi. What is known right now from the catalouges, is Adam only has 4 songs listed as a co-writer with Pittman. But again, this article instead is using HiFi’s statements in/to the press, as seemingly established facts and ignoring the possibility that this isn’t accurate and that there might be evidence that it isn’t, i.e. writer catalouges, that doesn’t support this claim.

Though totally granted, all of this isn’t part of yet another HiFi press release, per se, it’s just shoddy journalism to use Heckler’s “facts,” as part of a story without providing any context around it, like by attribution instead of intimating it as actual facts.

Also in this article, while it’s true that no new quotes have been given out by Adam or 19E to refute Heckler’s newest claims in this article, I find it interesting that the author chose to ignore the parts of Adam’s previous press statement of Adam’s which does dispute much of what Heckler does say. The author uses instead only the previously isssued 19E statement, which uses one part of Adam’s quote, but again, doesn’t give any other context beyond that. Context which does exist in Adam’s full release, which would be very applicable to what Heckler’s saying. Of course the author can choose what sources, quote or framework they feel most relevant. And seemingly the framework they decided on was David v. Goliath and 19E machine being challenged, so anything that might get in the way of that, wasn’t going to be used. Which is fine, it is in the nature of the beast. I’m just not impressed by this latest example of what seems to me, to be shoddy journalism.