By John W. LoftusEditor of the Daily Beast, November 21, 2018, 11:24amThe headline of this article was not accurate.
The letter to the editorial board read as follows:Dear Editor,I am writing to ask you to reconsider the decision to publish a story based on anonymous anonymous sources from a source whose source was not identified, which was published in the New York Times, and which was based on information published by an anonymous source.
The article in question, “How Much is Enough?” contained no names of the sources, and it included no information that might indicate that the anonymous sources had any sort of relationship with the newspaper.
In addition, the piece was based entirely on information about the newspaper, including an article by a reporter for a local newspaper who has worked in the newspaper for decades.
We also reported on the relationship between a local reporter and the anonymous source in an article in the Times.
As we have noted, that piece was published on January 22, 2021.
In the piece, which focused on a local New York newspaper, the unnamed source said that he or she had a personal connection to the newspaper that would enable them to identify a number of people with whom the unnamed sources spoke about the possibility of a future merger.
That connection was a personal relationship, which is not necessarily a relationship of a friend or a confidant, and was not shared with the source.
This was a relationship between two individuals who knew each other, who had been friends for many years, and who shared a shared goal to be a part of a news organization that would help people in the news media.
We have reached out to the New Yorkers who were interviewed and to the source to ask about that personal connection.
I am deeply troubled by the news report that was published, and we have written to you about the allegations.
We believe it to be inaccurate, based on an investigation that we are conducting.
We will not be retracting the story.
The Times did not retract its story based solely on the information that the source provided to us.
The story also included a number to the effect that the unnamed journalist had worked with the Times for many, many years.
We spoke with him several times, and he was adamant about the accuracy of the information he provided, and his desire to continue to do so.
We did not publish the story based entirely upon information that was provided to the Times, which would have made the story more likely to have been believed by readers and readers of the paper.
As you know, the Times has published an extensive list of people who were involved in the merger discussions, including a former chief financial officer who was instrumental in the deal, two former reporters, one who had a long relationship with a news source, and one who was a longtime editor of the Times who has close ties to the publisher.
The Times has also reported extensively on the Times-owned news site The New York Post, which has a history of publishing information from a variety of sources.
The story was based solely upon information shared with The Times by the unnamed reporter.
We contacted him several months ago, and, based upon what he told us, he told the Times that he was not a source.
He told us that he had worked for the Times as a reporter in the past, and that he has been a news reporter for over 30 years.
He said that the Times had never paid him for his work, but that he believed that if it did pay him, it was because he had earned it through his work.
He added that he never had any kind of relationship, personal or professional, with the paper and that if he did, he had nothing to do with its management.
We believe that his statement was false.
The unnamed reporter was not employed by The Times as recently as two years ago.
We do not know what other information that The Times had that could have led it to believe that he, or any other of its employees, had any relationship with The New Times.
We know that there was a source of information, which we do not believe is anonymous.
The information we have received from The Times suggests that a number, possibly hundreds, of people were involved with the merger.
The newspaper has said that it did not know that anyone had a relationship with that source and that the information was sourced to anonymous sources.
This is not a story that we would publish.
We reached out repeatedly to The Times and to this anonymous source, to no avail.
We have reached a point in our reporting and our reporting that we believe is inappropriate.
The publication of this story is not the publication of an accurate account of the company’s discussions and its plans.
It is an attempt to cover up a number issues that are not worthy of the newspaper’s title and is clearly inaccurate.
This decision by the Times to publish this article is not based on a report that we have published