Sometime back a young lady by the name of Muckheiber, on Forbes staff, wrote a rather loosely constructed article, "implying" a nuber of "bad" things about the IPM entity and some of its management. While she was careful not to make direct accusations the overall impression left by this writer of a large-circulation, well respected financial publication left no doubt that "something was not right with IPM". Taking up the thought the "me too" people jumped on that particular bandwagon and Bloomberg and Barron's were quick to chime in, in more or less the same vein.
Being a bit familiar with one small aspect of what she was talking about I did some further basic research, "sophmoric" in style, Karl might tell you[<g>], and discovered that Ms. Muckheiber had done an extremely inadequate level of research, considering the potential damage of the implications she was throwing around and the public assumption that she was an "investigative analyst". We also must realize that every word she wrote was carefully reviewed by an experienced hard-core editor that had, by definition, not such a bad legal background as well.
Frankly, had she bothered to do the job [that I felt she was paid to do] she _could have built an even stronger case against IPM management, had she so chosen. Given the subsequent public feedback received by Forbes, I was sure that the "other shoe" was going to drop and that she would do a follow-on article, "fleshing out" her initial findings. As we all know, this expected follow-on article did not occur. In short, the intent of the article, I assume, was not to "report", but "allude" and cast doubts. And, after all, "bad news" is read more readily than anything "good" said about someone, and, in the publication business, "circulation" is where the money is. And, as we all know, "money" is "God" to these good people, only surpassed by "power".
In my commenting about this, on CIS, I believe that Lew was was of the many that attempted to take me to the mat on my own findings on this issue. I did not agree with his style, but I certainly concurred that his style was his prerogative and that he had every right to challenge me. We were "peers" on this subject. The equal give and take is what these forums are all about. We understand this. Still . . . .
There is a major difference between the status of Lew Green and, say, for example, of a Ms. Muckheiber of Forbes. Lew does not get "paid" to be an investigative analyst - Muckheiber does [as do the writers of the other two publications]. Lew's background is well known and it would be expected that his writing style would probably not conform to the "Alan Greenspan School of Somber Writing". And, indeed, in reading his post with this thought in mind we probably should come to the conclusion that his comments were less of an accusation than they were of a direct challenge to "The Bloomberg/Forbes/Barron's School of Fanciful Writing". What he is _really doing is telling them to put their money where their mouth is - put up or shut up. But . . . .
Nevertheless, Lew _is "guilty". We "_know" this. He is guilty of lacking influence and power. He is guilty of not having a full-blown staff of cut-throat lawyers ready to pounce on anyone who should "step out of line". He is guilty of attempting to "beard" an entity that arrogantly revels in its invincibility and believes that it doesn't need to answer to anybody, let alone "the unwashed public". And, worst of all, he is guilty of attracting the attention of those who would wish him to just shut up because "he bothers them". This is unfortunate. However . . .
I really wonder if Bloomberg, et al, has the cojones, integrity, and professional ability to carefully re-examine the issue and adequately [and _publicly!] support their stance. The "challenge" has been made - Lew has quite nicely dumped it in their lap. They have every reason to respond to it. I am willing to bet, though, that the style of reporting that we have been witnessing so far from these "good folk" will remain consistent in nature. I do _not expect a public answer.
It is a shame that the good nickname of General "Stonewall" Jackson, that great American Civil War hero, has become so mis-used. Pity. It would be nice to retain some of those nice old ideals . . . . .
Rod [Hollywood Beach, Ca.]
P.S. Yes, yes, I know - "Disclaimer". I do hold a position in IPMCF. |
