It sounds like a bulletin was indeed circulated, and it sounds like the WSJ is being pretty candid about the law enforcement response:
Law-Enforcement Officials Sow Confusion on Manhunt for Kirk Shooter /
Contradictory public statements risk undermining confidence in investigation, law enforcement veterans say
The WSJ is not going to have first hand access to the evidence, so they have to report (transparently!) what they’re told by credible sources. In this case, it sounds like law enforcement — supposed to be credible — is not. It’s a pretty tricky thing to report on.
seems like this wasnt even an accurate report
https://bsky.app/profile/thelincoln.bsky.social/post/3lyl5ljm2h22m
My shocked Pikachu face is shocked at this shocking shock.
but WSJ ran with it.
Can you believe, once upon a tine long long ago The Wall Street Journal actually had integrity in journalism.
Now it’s a billionaire’s plaything.
Honestly, been alive for forty plus years now and no, they’ve never had integrity in journalism.
https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/charlie-kirk-shot/card/pdymd1sXXMSlVRhpvR4b
It sounds like a bulletin was indeed circulated, and it sounds like the WSJ is being pretty candid about the law enforcement response:
https://www.wsj.com/us-news/charlie-kirk-shooting-manhunt-e7f3eae4
The WSJ is not going to have first hand access to the evidence, so they have to report (transparently!) what they’re told by credible sources. In this case, it sounds like law enforcement — supposed to be credible — is not. It’s a pretty tricky thing to report on.
deleted by creator
Wall Street Murdoch not wrong! Clicks go up!