News » Local News

Subscribe

Clarification

  • Print
  • •
  • •
  • 5 Comments
  • •
  • Favorite
  • •
  • Report an error Report error
    • Thank you for your submission.
      Error report or correction
      Contact name (optional) Contact phone/e-mail (optional)  
      Sending report
    • Close
  • •
  • Originally published April 2, 2009 at 5:36 p.m., updated April 2, 2009 at 5:36 p.m.

Corrections and Clarifications

The Advocate wants to correct promptly any error in fact or clarify any misleading information we publish. To report any error or need for clarification, please call 361-574-1222.

n Victoria Mayor Will Armstrong and former city attorney David Smith met with Victoria Advocate journalists because they said they were worried about the handling of the investigation of Michael Ratcliff. One sentence in a May 28, 2008, article was unclear about who attended the late October 2007 meeting at the Victoria Advocate.


Sign Up
CLOSE

  • Print
  • •
  • •
  • 5 Comments
  • •
  • Favorite
  • •
  • Report an error Report error
    • Thank you for your submission.
      Error report or correction
      Contact name (optional) Contact phone/e-mail (optional)  
      Sending report
    • Close
  • •

Comments

  • Avenger Avenger Report a ViolationReport a Violation Permalink

    Or, maybe the Advocate is just now starting to reveal what their role in all of this has been, since it will be coming out in the trial anyway?

    April 2, 2009 at 8:24 p.m.
  • ThomasRMartinez ThomasRMartinez Report a ViolationReport a Violation Permalink

    Thanks for the comments. We will clarify or correct any facts that come to our attention, no matter how old the correction may be. This clarification just came to our attention this week. It's our goal to be as transparent and accurate as possible at all times.
    Thanks as always for reading and your comments.
    ThomasRMartinez

    April 2, 2009 at 7:19 p.m.
  • justmyopinion31 justmyopinion31 Report a ViolationReport a Violation Permalink

    Wow! Kinda late for a clarification VA

    April 2, 2009 at 6:45 p.m.
  • victorianbybirth victorianbybirth Report a ViolationReport a Violation Permalink

    CYA

    April 2, 2009 at 6:07 p.m.
  • ThirdPartyObserver ThirdPartyObserver Report a ViolationReport a Violation Permalink

    Why in the world is this "clarification" in the paper today? The entire issue gets stranger and stranger with each new report. What could the possible motivation be for clarifying something that was printed almost eleven months ago?

    Where is the truth in all of this, does anyone have an idea?

    April 2, 2009 at 6 p.m.