Indeed, it appears like this rejoinder had been heavily edited, before being published.
It did not make sense to me because I immediately sensed there was some missing information that was required, to make it more meaningful than:
"It is both incorrect for the Newspaper to come up with headlines as below."Which newspaper? Why both? Could it have been an innocent editorial or graphical omission?
Not a chance!
And on closer inspection, the reason why becomes very evident. The write up says:
"FACT: Its is both appalling and real distortion of facts for the Na... newspaper writer to come up with headlines as below."Okay. The 'Its is' part needed to be edited.
But there seems to have been a deliberate effort to remove self-incriminating evidence against the newspaper that originally published the story.
Maybe from a legal point of view, that makes a lot of sense.
But what's the point of the media according the right of reply to an aggrieved party, seeking to set the record straight, if their intended message is going to be wantonly distorted?
It amounts to misrepresentation of facts, in a write up about misrepresentation of facts!