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: carranza2 who wrote (94562)	1/10/2005 3:48:53 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793817

I suppose what I meant to say was that the only way the firings make sense to me... Yes, I understood what you meant to say. I disagree with you that such callous disregard for professionalism and for journalistic ethics is not enough to support firing particularly given the massive discredit it brought to the network. I appreciate your suspicions about malice and/or politics. I just disagree that they wouldn't have been fired if that's all that happened. "Myopic zeal" in such an inflammatory arena with such potential for fallout is enough for me. we [the panel] are damned if we are going to specifically say so because after all we cannot read people's minds. In my experience, and I've written a lot of these reports, you limit your assertions to what is clearly so. It's counter-productive to embellish with what can be contested, particularly if those embellishments don't add to the penalty. [note that I haven't read the full report, just snippets] I haven't either. I have no opinion on whether politics and malice were in play. I'm only opining about your conclusion that the firings are evidence that the report was whitewashed.