Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: John Carragher who wrote (70340)	9/15/2004 9:14:23 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 794026

how do you explain that they got two opinions before being aired that documents were forged and they ignored the mention of any dispute over the documents. Frst of all, we don't know who "they" is. "They" could be some little guy who was in charge of getting opinions or it could be "CBS" or it could be something in between. Secondly, there is a difference between accepting only what suits your premise and ignoring the rest, aka bias, and consciously perpetrating a fraud. Not saying that the former is excusable. But a professionalism shortfall is not the same as overt fraud. I, for one, think the distinction matters. It matters in terms of if and how the media clean up their act. IMO, we would be better off if it turns out to be a wake-up call on bias rather than fraud. If it is fraud, it's too easy to for the industry to treat it as an isolated incident rather than a corruption of the system.