Joe, It was surprising to me that the article you listed in your Post #892 cautioned us as
to the motives of authors that write for periodicals or are involved with a bunch of internet
sites and radio shows that blur the distinction between unbiased research and paid advertising
such as Money World but did not caution us about authors who write for the Wall Street
Journal, Barron's and the Investment Business Daily. I have heard the WST referred to
as "The Rag".
Case in point. I would surmise that a number of ADVR supporters are as suspicious as
I am that Eric Savits could have possibly been a "Pen for Hire" in regard to his Barron's
ADVR article where he bashed Dr. Hirschman and in my opinion made it look like ADVR
was a scam. He seemed to justify his article based on the over speculation [unwarranted
exuberance] going on in trading the ADVR stock at the time by supposedly trying to warn
readers of the dangers in getting into a speculative stock situation. His ends justified his
means, sort to say < an cardinal unethical reporting method < where he cast doubts on
the purposes and goals of the company and adversely affected the price of the stock.
I guess that what I am trying to get at is that all stock article authors, whether they write for
the WSJ, IBD, Barron's, Business Week, Forbes, radio, the internet sites < or even posters
on SI < have a purpose in mind when they write. IMHO all hide under a the shield that
they are trying to furnish information. All paid authors would claim they are providing
a service to the reader when one wonders if they may be also [inadvertently or deliberately]
providing a service for the company they are writing about [when being positive], for
industrial competitors [when be negative], or maybe for even themselves [when being
either positive or negative].
The Kingfisher |
