TheStreet.com's Beth Kwon "A Study in Tabloid Yellow Journalism"
Preamble: I just found Beth's latest article and she has yet again been an inspiration.
Message 13027390
tabloid tab-loid Pronunciation: (tab'loid), a newspaper concentrating on sensational and lurid news
"yellow journalism." The term to describe the sensational handling of news in order to increase readership
Background: Beth Kwon has now written at least 4 articles concerning Anthony@Pacific. The first was in regards to his interaction with Silicon Investor, and 2 were in regards to the A@P's legal personal legal matters. And a mysterious 4th article consisted of where the Beth Kwon interjectors herself as reporter, into the story. It relates to Beth's "feeling towards critisum of her past reports on Anthony. For purposes of our study, we shall concentrate on the last three that Beth has written for TheStreet.com
On December 2nd 1999, Beth writes a story with the following sensational title.
"Internet Gadfly Meets a Fraud Case He Doesn't Like". In her first couple of sentences she states that Anthony "claims to uncover the shady side of Wallstreet". Giving her assessment of Anthony as a Gadfly and discounting out of hand Anthony's attempts to expose corruption. These first two steps are an attempt to bias the reader. There is an abundant record of "shady" Wall Street transactions that Anthony@Pacific has commented on (after investigation) on the Silicon Investor Message Boards.
Thestreet.com's Beth Kwon has the ability to show cases that prove the A@P can more than just claim to be involved with securities investigation. Though she has the ability to relate to new readers what Anthony has been involved with, she does not. An example would be a stock FSTW, which Anthony's investigation was picked up by other media sources. Nevertheless, Beth Kwon leaves it hanging out there as "claims to?".
Beth goes on to hold out readers on SI, as "a following" and imply that his readers are ill-informed to read Anthony's posts. Why take this position and leave this impression? The informed reader must wonder if it is because thestreet.com has taken a stance that Message Boards are not good information and that readers would be best served in paying to read thestreet.com reports. Incidentally, since James Cramer has the ability to take positions in stocks, I there is essentially no difference between his articles and Anthony's posts, both authors have equal potential to be biased on the stock.
Beth questions to why Anthony can be consider an Analyst by other media. To build her case, she uses the wording "failed to acknowledge his past", thereby leaving the reader to believe that an omission was made, a failing. Beth is clearly aware there is no requirement that necessitate a Anthony to disclose his every personal detail. Ms. Kwon implies that because she has an personal believe about Anthony's past that A@P should be forced to wear a "Scarlet Letter" everywhere he goes. Beth is either ill-informed or intentional misrepresenting. Kwon's dispute with A@P being referenced as an Analyst has little merit merit.
I believe that Beth's issue with referring to A@P as a journalist relates to his position as a "Shorter". Seldom does an analyst that is "Longing" a purchase of stock, state that they have a position. Just watch CNBC, while some say we like the stock and own the stock, many do not disclose that. Does Beth raise questions on Longs being "biased"? No. Recommending a stock sell, it would seem need extra special double disclosures, which Long purchases do not.
Beth next goes on about a Yahoo posting of Tony's specific court information, but does not disclose that one of the Yahoo posters that was pumping this information was indeed a noted SI member that has a personal grudge against Anthony. Would a good unbiased reporter take a moment to find out the source of the information, I believe so.
This quote from Beth's article clearly summarized the reason why the article is being written. Its a gotcha.
"Sure, a disability dispute doesn't have much to do with stock trading. But it's at least embarrassing for someone who champions the cause of investors in digging up frauds to be himself accused of mail fraud."
That's pretty weak, even for Beth, so she puts in this next quote.
---After the allegations appeared on Silicon Investor, some members questioned Elgindy. "Is it true that you are currently under indictment for securities / mail fraud? If it were, sure this would reflect upon your credibility here," wrote "zaxbowow." Elgindy responded, "My credibility is 100% intact ... what u say isn't true." ---
Beth puts that up in a Tabloid fashion and leaves the impression that Tony?s is falsely representing himself. Do you see the problem, take a look at it again. The author is accusing Anthony of being under indictment for securities/mail fraud? The " / " has to be read as "and". Beth is fully aware that Anthony is not under indictment for securities fraud, yet she lets that impression be left with the reader.
This is Yellow Journalism! Journalism of the "Gotcha", the type of message that does more to sell papers or web-site subscriptions than communicate to the once proud journalistic standards. Beth Kwon's series of Article does more to further her own goals, than anything else.
Beth Kwon's Final sentence is this
"Maybe the judge and jury will buy Elgindy's version of the events. And his followers may be well advised to watch their leader carefully."
She uses the word choice "buy" implying that Anthony's version of event is false or he has been misleading in her interview with her. Clearly the author is conveying doubt. Beth lets out this impression, yet does nothing to support her feelings. Perhaps if Ms Kwon did more thinking rather than feeling she would present more facts. Her last comment implies that readers of Anthony should be distrustful of him. What a wonderfully ambiguous way to close her Tabloid piece. The dangers to Tony readers were never mentioned or interviewed. Ms. Kwon wants to leave a warning message, however this warning has nothing to do with anything she has reported on.
Perhaps she should disclose her position about Anthony Pacific and Silicon Investor. Beth does in this other article.
Message 12988408
This is an article in regard to Silicon Investor and its high profile posters, and stating that Silicon Investor does not have the content it once did. What a wonder unbiased story about Silicon Investor and Tony?????
Not quite?.what should have been disclosed by Beth Kwon, the reporter who believes in full disclosure....IS...wait.....wait.....wait for it???THAT THESTREET.COM JUST LAUNCHED THEIR OWN MESSAGE BOARD 3 DAYS EARLIER.
Look here at what thestreet.com announces
Board Again: The Rebirth of TSC's Message Boards
By Ellen Leventry Associate Editor 2/14/00 11:35 AM ET
You walk the Wall Street walk, now talk the Wall Street talk. Welcome to TheStreet.com's new and improved message boards -- the place for thought-provoking discussion fueled by up-to-the-minute commentary and breaking news. We hope that you enjoy our new features and improved navigation.
So the critique of Silicon Investor seems to be related to the high quality boards that thestreet.com is selling to users and investors.
El stinko me thinko.
Also on the 17th Beth writes
When the Message Boards Turn Blue
By Beth Kwon Staff Reporter 2/17/00 12:17 PM ET
It had the makings of a great made-for-TV movie: betrayal, a lawsuit and -- my favorite part -- mean postings on the Internet???
This again is a critique of Anthony and Silicon Investor, where she take the unique stand point of interjected herself within what she is reporting on. Beth is one of the new journalists that apparently believe that they are part of the news, rather than reporting it.
My impression of Beth Kwon has been that of a simple uninspired reporter that takes basic concepts, does not understand the greater context of their meanings, and writes a weak story filled with false implications and shoddy stylistic writing skills. Beth's writing is the kind of stuff that would win second place in a high school journalism contest.
But its this final article by Ms. Kwon that is too me, hails her as a sub-mediocre and biased reporter, who's work and craft remains a sad remark on the quality of Internet reporting.
Message 13027390
Ms Kwon here states:
"The conviction renews credibility questions about the self-styled scam-stock vigilante" and later again?."But the fraud charges raised questions about his credibility"
Beth is a practitioner Yellow Journalism, within Cramer's Tabloid. Beth raises sensational questions, yet does nothing to show why her statements hold water. At no point does Beth tell us WHY his credibility is in question. That's kind of a large omission. Actually she does the opposite in the prior article where she says this has little to do with securities or investor matters. Yet Beth Kwon implies that this raises questions of credibility. I have to believe this is because of her stated "relationship" with Anthony. Beth does no checking on the quality of the posts that Anthony does on Silicon Investor.
For example CEGE was posted on Silicon Investor and had at least a 15 point movement within 2 days of its posting. Most would argue that is were the credibility is. Beth Kwon does not realize "the proof of the pudding is in the tasting"
Many will ask if Kwon is motivated to write in this negative capacity to benefit the authors and owners of thestreet.com in their competition to Silicon Investor.
For me it is much more simple than Beth Kwon's reporting is typical of the new breed of stock reporters. She regurgitates what she is told, she packages with computerized autoformating, adds some sensational bits and slaps out another piece of "Content"
Beth Kwon is much like the original CD-roms for computers which were called Garbage-ware, just stuff with data?but with little information.
Beth is not Journalist by my definition, Kwon is a word processing clerk who's product is utilized to sell advertising.
Beth Kwon's style is that of yellow journalism, which in my humble opinion says the most about her own credibility and that of her Tabloid.
Enough of this
........Wolff
PS: My editor took out all the really good parts.....NOT |
