It wouldn't be the first time the network news industry has picked up on a fallacy and reported it widely. In the face of a lack of attribution beyond "sources claiming anonymity" or in ABC's case, "A representative from Clear Channel", I'm still doubting the validity of this. Heck, given the occasional slipshod research involved in any major news organization, I'd be entirely unsurprised if this "representative" was the same one the original source list came from.

It may be true. It's likely not. Until there's an actual shred of hard evidence, why jump on the company for it?

M