Brad Chapin alleges that aspirational District 8 supervisor Manny Yekutiel sexually assaulted him six years ago. Yekutiel denies this.
Mission Local did not publish articles about Chapin’s claim against Yekutiel, which would be our procedure with most any single-sourced claim against any candidate.
But when Chapin on Wednesday stood before the members of San Francisco’s Democratic Party during an endorsement meeting and described the process it used to “investigate” his allegation as a sham, that was a far less controversial claim. This process was a sham.
We’ve spoken to half a dozen members of the local Democratic Party, across the spectrum of local political ideology, and that’s how they feel, too.
San Francisco’s Democratic Party in 2024 created its own “Code of Conduct and Policies for Sexual Assault and Harassment” in the wake of disturbing allegations being leveled at local Democratic politicos — most notably Mission District leader Jon Jacobo, who is presently being prosecuted on rape charges.
Members of the local Democratic Party risked repetitive stress injuries over the level of back-patting they self-applied over creating that code of conduct: The party’s website lists more than a dozen articles documenting its professed campaign to take on alleged political malefactors.
A 2024 letter from party chair Nancy Tung unmistakably refers to Jacobo and former Latinx Democratic Club president Kevin Ortiz as the impetus for this action.
The code of conduct was expediently spun up and enacted, to great fanfare. At last, we were led to believe, the scourge of alleged predators and harassers lurking within San Francisco political circles would be addressed.
Not since the America’s Cup have San Francisco officials so overpromised and underdelivered.
The Democratic Party’s much-vaunted code of conduct, it turns out, is narrowly applicable. Not only did it not cover whatever did or didn’t happen between Chapin and Yekutiel, it wouldn’t even have applied to Jacobo — who, again, has been charged with rape by the district attorney and is being criminally prosecuted.
“If Jon was seeking an endorsement, and I went to the Democratic Party and reported what happened to me, they would say that was also outside their jurisdiction,” said Sasha Perigo, one of Jacobo’s accusers.
Ortiz, meanwhile, was never prosecuted, nor were any of the accusations of alleged unwanted behavior officially substantiated. Regardless, these, too, would not have come under the aegis of the Democratic Party’s new dictum.
That’s because the local Democratic Party code of conduct governing inappropriate sexual conduct only covers what happens at official party or chartered Democratic club meetings or connected official events.
Blessedly, most meetings do not feature this manner of behavior. Most official events don’t, either, though this would seem to cover someone misbehaving at, say, a club holiday gathering or a symposium.
The code of conduct is certainly not applicable to Chapin’s allegation that he was assaulted in someone’s private home, years before Yekutiel was an office-seeker.
The much-ballyhooed policy does not cover people working in City Hall, on campaigns, at nonprofits or pretty much anywhere that isn’t under the umbrella of the local Democratic Party and its chartered clubs.
And, as Perigo notes, that’s not how sexual assault and harassment typically work. Even if people meet at official clubs or events, the Democratic Party’s reach does not extend to time they spend in bars, in taxis, in homes — or anywhere that isn’t somehow tied to an official meeting or event.
So, we’ve established that if you disobey Robert’s Rules of Order and sexually assault someone in plain view of multiple witnesses at a Democratic Club meeting or official event, the code of conduct has you dead to rights. Do not pass go, do not collect $200.
In less straightforward cases, it’s of little use. So, that’s a problem. But there were also problems in not just the conception and formulation of the code of conduct, but how its application unfolded.
To wit, when Chapin first registered a complaint with the Democratic Party in early 2026, nothing happened. For months.
At this point, we need to briefly outline how this works, or is at least supposed to work. The investigatory process for charges of sexual misconduct has, by intention, been separated from the actual Democratic Party, and is carried out by volunteers.
The Democratic Party seems to feel that, given the chance, its members couldn’t help but interfere with such a sensitive matter — so it must, by design, sequester the people responsible for overseeing sexual assault complaints.
That may be true. But it also leads to opacity. Even members of the Democratic Party’s own Committee on Sexual Assault and Harassment say they do not know who actually carried out the investigation of Chapin’s accusations.
In the event of trouble — like not contacting a complainant for months — there’s no way to demand accountability. And we’ve got trouble.
Here’s how things ought to go, according to the code of conduct.
A complaint to the Democratic Party is first fielded by a volunteer/pro bono ombudsperson. This individual determines if the complaint falls under the (very narrow) scope of the code of conduct. If so, an investigation is launched. And, finally, the investigator’s report is submitted to the volunteer/pro bono judicial committee, which creates a three-member adjudication panel.
We know the chair of the judicial committee is a woman named Gina M. Roccanova, because she signed her name to the one-page summation disseminated to Democratic Party members on Aug. 26, only hours before the District 8 endorsement vote.
But nobody seems to know who the ombudsperson was; again, not even members of the Democratic Party’s own Committee on Sexual Assault and Harassment. And when they asked, we hear they were told it was not their business to know.
Our messages to party chair Nancy Tung and executive director Bobak Esfandiari asking that question were not returned.
Here’s why that matters: Remember, it’s the ombudsperson’s job to determine if a complaint falls within the purview of the code of conduct. Since Chapin’s complaint is so clearly outside the code’s narrow scope, this is a determination that should’ve been made quickly — within days, maybe hours. But that didn’t happen.
The Democratic Party made its supervisor endorsements in mid-July. But not in District 8, because of the outstanding complaint. Instead, in mid-July, Chapin was contacted for an interview about his allegations by an attorney with the law firm Gibson Dunn.
And Roccanova’s Aug. 26 letter mentions that “an Adjudication Panel convened on Aug. 25, 2026, to review the investigator’s findings of fact and make a determination about whether a violation of the code of conduct occurred.”
We don’t know who the ombudsperson was, and we certainly don’t know what the hell they were thinking initiating a five-week process to determine what should’ve been evident in moments: This complaint doesn’t fall under the code of conduct, because almost nothing does.
Instead, one day before the delayed endorsement vote, the panel reached that belated conclusion. Its terse writeup noted that, since the code was not applicable, “the accusation cannot be substantiated.” But also: “This is not a determination on the merits of whether a sexual assault occurred.”
This memo was neither damning nor exonerating. It was nothing: Voting members of the Democratic Party were, after all that time, given absolutely zero new or useful information.
It is mystifying why this delay was allowed to occur and just what the hell was being done over those many weeks. Members of the local party, on the day of a vote, were handed a half-page letter announcing that an investigation determined only that there needn’t be an investigation, and they then buttressed that vote based upon the outcome of “the investigation.”
This is something you’d expect to see in “Death of Stalin,” not a Viz Valley community center.
Chapin, on Wednesday, was dumbfounded. “I went to your attorneys,” he told the party. “I asked him explicitly if this was a waste of my time because none of this happened at a Democratic Party event. And you knew that.”
The Democratic Party ultimately endorsed Manny Yekutiel. And that is its prerogative.
It would have been fanciful to posit that any investigation by the Democratic Party would’ve truly gotten to the bottom of a six-year-old accusation with no independent witnesses that the police could not crack using a wire. Was the Democratic Party going to fire up the Mystery Machine and hunt for clues? Everyone should’ve been clear-headed about that.
But the process the party undertook was indefensible — and not just useless, but worse than useless.
Whether or not you believe the claims of Brad Chapin, he was, clearly, in public agony during the course of Wednesday’s meeting. The Democratic Party sent a clear message to him and to anyone who’d think to come forward with a complaint. And it is emphatically not the message it triumphally proclaimed just two years ago.
“It is reckless to design a system so poorly, because the evidence will be used to invalidate survivors,” says Perigo. “I think the Democratic Party should’ve been honest about its capacity to fact-find in a situation in which, very likely, there were no facts to be found. Especially after police had already investigated.”
“At best, it was a waste of the survivor’s time,” she continued. “And, at worst, it does more damage than doing nothing at all.”
Statement from the San Francisco Latino Democratic Club on the DCCC’s Endorsement of Manny Yekutiel
The San Francisco Latino Democratic Club condemns the San Francisco Democratic County Central Committee’s decision to endorse Manny Yekutiel for District 8 Supervisor while a serious allegation of sexual assault remains unresolved.
Let us be clear: Manny Yekutiel denies the allegation, and the DCCC’s process did not determine whether the alleged assault occurred. But that is precisely why tonight’s endorsement exposes such profound hypocrisy.
For years, influential members of the DCCC have treated accusations against Latino men and other men of color as sufficient grounds for public condemnation, political exclusion, and permanent reputational damage—before any neutral investigation, hearing, or opportunity to
respond. Under that standard, an accusation itself became the verdict.
Last night, those same political leaders suddenly discovered the importance of uncertainty, jurisdiction, evidence, and due process when the accused was a well-connected candidate supported by some of San Francisco’s most powerful political interests.
Due process cannot be a privilege reserved for the elite. Either it belongs to everyone, including men of color, or it is not due process at all.
The contradiction is especially glaring for Lily Ho and Nancy Tung. As chairs of the SFDCCC and of the DCCC’s Special Committee on Sexual Assault and Harassment, these so called “leaders” publicly presented publicly themselves as champions committed to accountability and
creating safer political spaces.
The DCCC cannot claim to center survivors when politically convenient and then retreat behind procedural limitations when accountability threatens an ally. It cannot demand that some accused individuals prove their innocence while extending others the full benefit of every doubt.
It cannot use allegations as political weapons against men of color and then call for restraint, nuance, and fairness when one of the establishment’s preferred candidates faces scrutiny.
We hold accountable every DCCC member who cast one of the twelve votes to endorse Yekutiel. Each affirmative voter made an individual choice to provide exceptions to some and award the Democratic Party’s credibility, resources, and institutional support despite an unresolved allegation and a process that produced no determination on the underlying facts.
It’s a political racist double standard.
This statement is not a declaration of anyone’s guilt. It is a demand for one consistent standard.
If an accusation alone disqualifies a Latino man or another man of color, political connections must not transform that same accusation into an inconvenience that can be managed, minimized, or ignored. The principles of fairness, accountability, and due process must not
change according to a person’s race, influence, donors, or proximity to power.
The twelve members who voted for this endorsement must answer publicly for their decision.
San Francisco Democrats deserve to know why due process has so often been denied to men of color but invoked as a shield for members of the political elite.
Our community sees the double standard. We reject it, and we will not remain silent about it.
Thanks Joe,
Excellent reporting. You can’t blame the Dems though, they are just doing what they are paid to do. The Democratic Party is using the same level of thought, planning, and procedure as the Mayor, so not too surprising.
We need a citywide campaign to oppose Manny the sexual assault perp as a candidate for ANY office.
TL:DR The DCCC thinks sexual misconduct is a-okayyy as long as it doesn’t happen on their watch….
What a fucking joke.
Months of delay, deny, defend right here, almost as if they designed it this way.
Which, if anyone should be honest, being this delayed with such a small scope, it is.
Not just the Democratic party. The Chronicle too, since they endorsed Ma for Lieutenant Governor after her own sexual scandal.
Russell, the civil case against Ma was dropped. There never was a criminal case.
So there were no grounds for any entity to refuse to endorse Ma who, I feel sure you know, won elections to various California state offices which she has successfully served for the last 20 years.
” So there were no grounds for any entity to refuse to endorse Ma ”
Entirely false characterization, actually. A civil case is 100% grounds, depending on what it unearths. Ma admittedly got into her staffer’s bed and called her into the room at least 3 times in a state of undress. That’s certainly grounds for concern about a professional elected official handling serious issues.
Again, Mister, there is no solid evidence for that allegation. If you don’t like Ma then fine, don’t vote for her. But to instead believe every slur and self-serving claim made against someone who has given 20 years of loyal service to the State is deplorable.
Wrong, it’s been confirmed by Ma’s own statement. She admitted that much yet claims no wrongdoing.
Read better maybe. Job 1.
If you can’t do that, you can’t know what’s fact or not and your “arguments” have zero value on the topic at hand.
Exactly, there was no “wrongdoing” by Ma, so nothing to see here.
Garry Tan and Daniel Lurie’s cash backs this sexual assault coverup.
Next time you hear Lurie or Garry Tan say they want to be tough on crime, don’t believe them.
If you’re friends with Lurie and Garry Tan, they’ll let you get away with rape.
I’m worried we don’t have enough Joe Eskenazis in this town
The Democratic Party has some great ideas and values.
Furthermore, they are great at legislating and appropriating, but over the past number of decades they have been increasing terrible at actually getting good things done — especially on critical 2 and 4-year election cycles.
That frustrating track record is why a huge chasm of “political space” is created for “burn-it-all-down” nut jobs on the (populist) right e.g. “MAGA” and Trump.
Ortiz was seemingly the motivation in forming a committee. They wanted to put the pinch on him and bypassed any process by including him in announcing a process. Tung schemed up the not-so-vague accusation “allegation against a current president of a chartered Democratic club” as if she were crafty instead of high on her own farts.
Perigo was a single-source claim when ML first ran that story. Chapin’s claim is every bit as valid and credible, which is of course what it comes down to.
Jacobo was not a candidate at the time. As I remember Perigo had a bunch of text messages and other stuff that backed up her story. Nor was it six years later with no corroboration whatsoever. Nor were there political stakes like this. Who’s to say Chapin is not working for McCoy, whose campaign manager loudly proclaimed she believed not only Chapin but also a mysterious underground whisper network of other Manny accusers, offering no more evidence, or names. This whole affair smacks of McCarthyism
Mark:
Precisely, exactly, what kind of “corroboration” are you imagining? And do you ask for the same kind of corroboration for other crimes where the only two direct witnesses are the accuser and accused?
To publish or not to publish comes down to credibility and corroboration, benchmarks met by Fitz and Lamb at the Standard in their thorough reporting. Dineen also wrote an excellent piece (though the Chronicle did initially sit on the story for similar reasoning as Joe provides here).
If the accused is a candidate, that is a consideration in vetting the credibility or the accuser, but reporting cannot be ruled out simply because their is one accuser and no definitive proof, and time frame is largely irrelevant when it comes to political candidates.
You are wrong that Chapin provided no corroboration as he provided the same as Perigo in regards to contemporaneous tellings, ie text messages and people he’d told. Perigo has no definitive proof, or “facts” as she tells it.
Alyce McFadden wrote the Chronicle piece, not J.K. Dineen. She obviously put a lot of time in and I’d like to correct my error.
Probably should report things BEFORE SIX YEARS GO BY, so a proper investigation can be done. Coming out of the woodwork six years later because someone is running for office is not the way to get justice done if that is what is being sought. What do you expect?
I was at the meeting on Wednesday. My heart breaks for Brad. I don’t know how he managed to sit through the parade of commenters standing inches from him singing Manny’s praises.
Nancy Tung, former head of the DA’s vulnerable victims unit, voted to endorse Manny. Moments later, right before abstaining from a much lower-stakes vote on Prop G, she gave a nice little speech about how “we need to listen to and believe people’s lived experiences [about traffic in the Sunset].” I guess that only applies at Party events or behind the wheel of a car.
This is a great rundown on what happened and how most of the current DCCC is made up of “moderates” to scared to lose their access to that sweet Tech money. This is really shameful.
> Mission Local did not publish articles about Chapin’s claim against Yekutiel, which would be our procedure with most any single-sourced claim against any candidate.
Amazing to see this level of transparency from a news operation. I can’t remember the last time a news story included a clear description of editorial procedures* right there in the body of the article. I wish this was the norm.
Speaking as a non-journalist, I believe Brad.
* blindly repeating the term from the article, no idea if this is established jargon among journalists or just Joe E’s personal lexicon.
lpe, you might well “believe Brad”. The point however is more that we do not have any evidence that supports that opinion, let alone anything that would constitute proof.
The alleged incident happened “years ago” and yet Brad only decided that it was worthy of reporting it in 2026, quite possibly when he heard or realised that Manny was running for office. Even someone who really wants to “believe Brad” can see that that looks fishy.
Joe does an excellent job of showing how the complaints procedure is dysfunctional. And that is a problem if you are going to have a complaints procedure at all. But in this case that is moot because Brad has no witnesses, corroboration or independent proof. Like many sexual assault cases, this is a he-said; he-said deal. So even if the complaints procedure was impeccable,, which it clearly is not, Manny would still have been found innocent and Brad’s claims would have been dismissed.
“The alleged incident happened ‘years ago’ and yet Brad only decided that it was worthy of reporting it in 2026, quite possibly when he heard or realised that Manny was running for office.”
You mean when he realized that that person might now be poised to wield a lot more power?
“Even someone who really wants to “believe Brad” can see that that looks fishy.”
It’s not fishy, for the reason I just said. And because of people like you, who ask “why didn’t you report earlier?” when a report is made. People like you are the reason why more survivors don’t report.
Stop victim blaming.
You don’t have to look far and see yourself as a Eric Swalwell supporter in your rearview mirror.
No victim wants to see their abuser reach a place of power to do worse things.
The problem with the process, wasn’t just a procedural problem, it showed that they didn’t even try to prove anything whether they did it or not, for 5 months, and did no actual investigation.
So, not only did we get nothing, we got a appearance of a DCCC that allows potential assault, a opaque process leading to a potential coverup, and not even any further degree of certainty that Manny would be found innocent.
In a actual process, we would know what investigators found, and make our own judgement, this is not a criminal trial; it is a trial by the public.
Not a malformed and far early opinion on a result of a lack of investigation that has no supporting result for your conclusion, and produced nothing but the appearance that the DCCC is covering up sexual assault by endorsing anyway without any actual attempt at investigating whether he did or did not do it.
“the DCCC is covering up sexual assault”
No, a coverup implies that it is known that an assault actually took place. But in this case that is not known. it is merely an allegation for which there is no witness, no forensics, no corroboration and no record of the alleged incident being reported to any other authority.
In the absence of any such evidence the conclusion of any deliberative body would have to be that the allegation is without merit. I might agree that the DCCC didn’t do a good job of communication here. But the outcome is still the only reasonable one.
You don’t have to be a genius to figure out that delaying for 5 months, then only then revealing the meager scope and lack of investigation is political chicanery at best, and abetting sexual assault at worst…
Are we really that gullible?
Does someone have to say the exact thing for the appearance of a cover up for you?
And they did not conclude anything, only that it didn’t happen in a DCCC event, when the question was whether there is reason the sexual assault may have occurred and FAILED TO ANSWER.
Then they endorsed anyway without ever actually investigating.
You have to be a fool to think any of this is a “reasonable outcome.”
People do not come forward for lots of reasons. But when someone has harmed them and seeks power many victims do come forward.
Difference of opinion is healthy and I don’t mind you disagreeing with me. Personally I think Occam’s razor applies in this case. I’ve seen a lot more rapey politicians (tons) than “unhinged” “aggrieved” “crazy” etc false accusers (happens but pretty rare in my experience as an observer).
Happy to hear more of your thoughts
The complaint in question was contemporaneously verified by multiple people with no reason to lie about it. Nice try to apologize-away a sexual assault but it’s not going to work.
Mister, other sources say there were no witnesses. I notice that you cannot name any of these alleged “witnesses”.
You’re deliberately mincing words now. It’s clear the account of the event was shared with multiple people at the time it happened, which was years ago. You’re pretending the fact that there was no physical witness (but there is!) to the event implies you’re willing to lie to protect a politically important individual, for politics. I notice you cannot prove any of the multiple people who say the victim informed them around the time of the assault are liars – what are you exactly?
I was at the D8 debate in Noe Valley. Chapin inquired where Manny would be sitting and took the seat front and center facing him. Later he introduced himself as, “Brad. THAT Brad.” When the other person looked perplexed, he responded, “You know, the one in the news.” This was not the same distresed Brad who spoke at DCCC. Just sayin’ …
Precisely how do you think is the appropriate way for Brad to have acted? Do tell.
Hmm. Sex. Ask the former campaign manager of Gavin Newsom, or Barbara Boxer
about her vote not to convict President Clinton in the matter of Jones v. Clinton, or
some of the others of the Burton-Brown-Pelosi-Harris cadre.
I believe Brad Chapin. Manny should be just another coffee shop owner, nowhere near the levers of power.
This article concludes that the investigation would have led to nothing. Even if they had fixed the process, Manny would have still been innocent under the law and received all endorsements he got. He likely would have received more if the dccc did the investigation and came up empty. Because they messed this up, Manny received less votes not more.
The standards for a party central committee to endorse a candidate or not are not the same high standards required to convict in criminal court. Hope this helps.
“The standards for a party central committee to endorse a candidate or not are not the same high standards required to convict in criminal court.”
Obviously but in this case there was no independent evidence at all that the “assault” ever happened so even a civil suit, with a much lower burden of proof, would have failed.
If the allegation had been allowed to stymie the endorsement, then that would send out a message that anyone can make an unsubstantiated claim of “assault” and torpedo a candidate. It would herald a tsunami of self-serving politically-motivated claims and allegations.
No Bill, YOU got corrected. There IS evidence that the victim reported contemporaneously to several friends AND professional acquaintances after Manny sexually assaulted him. This is verified.
Your tripe is not reality.
By your logic: In general, people can/will make false accusations against every politician whose election campaign they oppose, and have an incentive to do so that outweighs any disincentive.
If every part of that proposition were true then we would either see false accusations of sexual assault in every political race now, or sometime in the near future as people catch on to your genius ratfuck dirty campaign trick that you seem to think nobody else could think up.
But in fact we don’t see accusations of sexual assault appearing in every political race as a matter of course.
Why do you think that is?
Are people more honest than you think they are (except for e.g. Brad Chapin who you seem to think you know a lot about)?
You can’t think that the DCCC process is preventing this, because finding some rando to accuse candidate X has some chance of hurting candidate X and is basically zero-cost, so the puppet master orchestrating the false accusation has nothing to lose regardless of investigation outcome.
To put it briefly, your slippery slope ain’t slipping even 8 years after the Christine Blasey Ford and Brett “boof” Kavanaugh news. Which as we all know was not the earliest major me too case anyway.
So…?
Ordinarily I wouldn’t put the effort into writing all this just to lecture some other anonymous internet person. But your comments throughout the site seem to show that you could benefit from learning that you are not the smartest guy around just because you have some coins. If I didn’t succeed in this I hope somebody else will.
You are welcome to insult me in response if you wish, but please try and come up with something a little spicier than “capricious”. Maybe “slothful”? “loser”? “non-job-creator”? “plebeian”?
No insult, just a correction. This kind of spurious attack doesn’t happen much only because they are not tolerated. My point was that had the DCCC caved to this isolated claim, then that negative tactic would become much more common. So the DCCC was right to slap Brad down, even if they could have done it more openly and clearly.
Maybe it is fairer to say that we got the right outcome for the wrong reason.
“But nobody seems to know who the ombudsperson was — again, not even members of the Democratic Party’s own Committee on Sexual Assault and Harassment. And when they asked, we hear they were told it was not their business to know. ”
All this sort of nonsense is why I am so uninspired to volunteer for any candidate in this town, and may end up voting for no one vs the options I am being given. Why can’t we find good people to run for office anymore? Can we get Mark Leno out of retirement if there are no new decent folks who want to lead our city?
I wouldn’t give up on everyone just because the “moderate” faction that controls the local party sucks. There are three excellent candidates — Gary McCoy, Michael Nguyen, and Darshini Patel — running in District 8, for example.
SOME of these self-described “moderate” – really: careerist, failure (because there sure as heck isn’t any ideology here outside of The Climb) – members of SF DCCC would do well to hear that in their frantic scrabbling for advancement, kissing up to their coalition’s benefactors etc, they have made themselves and their organization a complete joke. These people aren’t Democrats, they’re just a bunch of self-dealing hungry ghosts. Nobody in this city should take anything they do or say seriously anymore. Where is the backbone and integrity? Where is the consistency? I am so ashamed and disappointed in this city’s civic community. Truly pathetic behavior, and will not be remembered well.
> hungry ghosts
Harsh words, and I can’t disagree.
Nice work, Joe,
You’re the best at directing traffic in a minefield.
go Niners !!
h.
Oh, you kids. The woke are asleep at the wheel again. That said, if SFPD didn’t find any evidence…?
I see people are still laboring under the misapprehension that politics is symmetrical, and that the accountability enforced on progressives will be reciprocated as anything but full consideration for conservatives.
Strange to me that Joe and all of the commenters seem to think the local Democratic club is some sort of law enforcement agency. Just like any private group, they came up with a policy to deal with stuff that THEY could be held responsible for – things happening on their watch. But the idea that they should shoulder the burden of what is, in essence, a broad criminal investigation, is preposterous. That’s not their job. The only blameworthy thing here is that they took too much time to say that this wasn’t within the purview of their policy. They should have done that more quickly. But that’s no “mockery” of anything, it’s just a little standard-issue negligence.
Sir or madam —
You seem confused. I don’t think the Democratic Party is an adjudicatory body or a law-enforcement agency, as should be resplendently clear from even a cursory reading. If, as you posit, “that’s not their job,” then this is something that could’ve been mentioned when the party chose to *make this their job* and announced that it would take these matters seriously.
These are, in fact, serious matters. But this is not a serious or workable process. And that’s making a mockery of it.
Yours,
JE
Spellcheck is the “journalist’s” best friend. Just saying.
Adamdra —
I’d say the journalist’s best friend is quality sources and institutional memory. Misspelling a word in haste on an internet comment section isn’t on the same plane. Thanks for the eyes though. Nice scare quotes.
Best,
JE