TOareaFan
Superstar
The paper says that she said that, why are you splitting hairs?
This is a journalistic method of interpreting/paraphrasing.....and I am not even saying they are "lying" but there is a broad range of what could have been interpreted as her saying it is not meant to be public transit. It is being heard, by many, as a "let them eat cake comment" when it could have been something like (in response to why is the train priced higher than the existing public transit option) "unlike the current public transit option, this is different and it designed to be"...or something like that.
The reason there is no quote around the words "was not meant to be transit" is likely because she never said that....but said something that could be interpreted/extrapolated with the realm of reasonableness by a journalist to support them printing that. Again, it is very much like the $20-$30 thing.....she/they have never said that.....but I heard her on a radio station being interviewed about that....in her opening comments she noted that ML never said that.....every time the interviewer mentioned it she reminded them this is not ML's position on pricing......by the end of the interview the interviewer reworded the question to be are other services around the world that price...she said yes some are.....then the "can you promise this one won't"...obviously she can't....so the rest of the morning their news on started with "ML won't deny $30 fares on UPe"......by the afternoon drive home, same station was reporting "fares will be $30"....but they couldn't directly quote her...because she never said it.
It is not splitting hairs, it is showing a basic understanding of how journalism works....if Ms Adkins ever said to a journalist "this is not public transit" I assure you they would run with that quote....in very bold letters.
Last edited: