Problems of Sources/Media
Bob: Thank you for your very well-articulated post. You raise some significant matters and, while I take issue or would offer a different reading of some, I respect your opinion. I will attempt to address two of those matters here: the role of the internet; and the media. In this brave new world the two are often inter-twined.
In the best of all possible worlds, the internet would undoubtedly offer an effective and immediate tool to combat misinformation. In the complex world in which we actually live, however, the internet does not guarantee such a desired outcome. To extend the metaphor, as citizens of this 'new world' we have both a self-interest and a responsibility to attain this effect, and that requires some effort. If we don't expend the effort, the internet becomes as much a vehicle of misinformation as of information. In my opinion, one of the means of at least mounting a struggle against misinformation is the rather simple one of allowing as many voices as possible to be heard. This brings me to the 'problem of sources' mentioned in the heading.
A recent Stockhouse post observed that the forum had a common source of due diligence and claimed this as a strength (opposed, I believe, to the limited due diligence of the main-stream media). I have previously made mention of the impressive amount of documentation compiled by members of the Stockhouse thread and I don't think anyone can contest that it is extensive. However, the common source of due diligence may be more 'common' than is immediately apparent and is not an unambiguous source of strength. If the claims made on Stockhouse are followed, there is a connection between Bob Bishop and Peter Grandich insofar a Bishop apparently encouraged Grandich to take up coverage of Crystallex; Grandich circulated information through his own writing and through Frank/Sammy on Stockhouse; and Steverino claims an association with Grandich which has, to some extent, been acknowledged. It has also been suggested to me that somewhere in this chain there is a link to The Insider Report. By far the most widely cited and, seemingly, the most respected source of information has been Roy Carson, whose influence permeates the Stockhouse forum. (I will return to Mr. Carson who has become something of an icon in what has recently been dubbed an 'internet sub-culture'.) There are, of course, a number of other contributors and some of their efforts have my utmost respect.
I think it is fair to say that in almost any thread you care to visit you will find a relatively small number of people who might be considered 'sources of information' and a proportionately larger number of people who comment, analyze, offer opinions, and ask questions. In respect to the number of 'sources' then, the Stockhouse Crystallex forum is not unique. Yet the nature of the Crystallex situation may well be unique and when the common sources are combined with other factors unique to the Crystallex thread, the result may well be a certain pathology.
In my opinion, the Stockhouse forum presents, in microcosm, an example of virulent cultural fascism. Dissent is not tolerated. As the forum developed, the task of discouraging dissent was taken up by a group of posters who collectively became known as the 'KRY police'. Their tactics included levelling accusations of complicity with 'the enemy' and heaping scorn and abuse on those perceived not be be adhering to the party line. More recently, we have witnessed the formation of an exclusively 'Pro-KRY' thread. As if this weren't sufficient cause for concern, even the regular contributors to this thread are now being cautioned against posting information that might be used by the 'other side'. I think the pathology is evident.
I will now return to Mr. Carson and his status as an icon. At the outset, I admit to a certain disdain for Mr. Carson's journalistic and editorial skills. A distaste for his use of varying fonts and colours has already been expressed by a poster on this thread. While I share a certain discomfort with this type of presentation, I am willing to consider that it may just be an effect of the medium akin to what might occur when a child previously constrained to drawing with a pencil is presented with a box of Crayola crayons. I have stronger stylistic concerns about textual matters. Simply put, I expect anyone laying claim to being a journalist to have at least enough facility with the language to avoid things such as the following: 'a panacea for your sole' (an exotic condiment for fish?); in reference to a phone conversation with Mr. Oppenheimer, I believe--'you could literally hear his smirk' (perhaps Mr. Oppenheimer should have those facial muscles attended to); some top officials were closeted in a 'hermetically sealed room' (I hope they were provided with masks and oxygen tanks). Admittedly, some might find these trivial. I am simply being honest about the fact that they are something of an annoyance to me. That being said, I am much more concerned with the substance of Mr. Carson's writing.
Quite some time ago, someone directed criticisms against Mr. Carson for obtaining compensation for his work. (I don't share this specific criticism and would no more direct it against Carson than I would against supermarket tabloids. Both have identified niche audiences and are quite free to profit from satisfying them as far as I'm concerned.) Mr. Carson's response to this criticism was actually one of the best pieces of writing I've seen from him. I take issue with a major argument that he advanced, however.
Carson would have us believe that there is some universal code of journalistic ethics. This is simply not so. If, for example, you encounter the phrase 'a source close to X' in the New York Times or some similar paper, the reasonable expectation that the 'source' is offering some pertinent information and is a friend, colleague, employee, or the like of X is usually justified. If you encounter the same phrase in a tabloid, that expectation is rarely justified. The 'source' in the latter might just as easily be some old rummy who panhandles outside X's place of business. He may be a 'source' only insofar as being willing to say something, relevant or not, and may satisfy the condition of being 'close to' only in the spatial sense. It isn't entirely clear to me that Mr. Carson recognizes a distinction.
Whatever Carson's code of ethics, I think he is clearly a student of the National Enquirer school of journalism. He frequently keys on a specific word or phrase and stylistically or textually enhances its significance. Where he doesn't present his niche audience with exactly what they want to hear, he is often very successful in being ambiguous enough so that it can be interpreted as such. It is my fervent hope that the Crystallex matter will be resolved before Elizabeth Taylor, Elvis Presley, and Michael Jackson begin appearing in VHeadline. If it drags on too long, I would not be completely surprised to learn that extra-terrestrials have gained positions of influence in certain government departments.
In the wake of Asensio's widely circulated claims about Crystallex, Mr. Carson admonished editors against cutting and pasting from company press releases. This brought to mind a VHeadline story concerning Naxos, a name that may be familiar to some. The 'story' was 'reported' by Roy Carson and, of course, 'edited' by Roy Carson. In fact, it was a straight cut and paste from a lengthy Naxos press release of the same date.
Most recently, Carson seems to have come up against conflicting coverage of Crystallex offered by the main-stream media. And Canada Stockwatch, by some accounts, has directly challenged Mr. Carson's reporting of the Acosta affair. (I hope I have the name of the Venezuelan congressman who raised such a furore at the Miami gold show right.) Carson, of course, doesn't exactly see it this way. His original claim that Acosta was to be 'HAULED before an internal disciplinary committee' has subsequently been modified to the more muted claim of a private meeting with his superior and referral to a 'complaints committee'. Mr. Carson considers this to be mere 'hair-splitting'. I find it difficult to accept it as such unless Mr. Carson has in mind hairs with a diameter approaching that of a California Redwood. In any event, it should raise the question of what distinctions Carson makes with respect to other matters. In the end, I think Carson needs to be challenged at least as much as the main-stream media. To this point, that certainly hasn't been the case.
Early in this far too lengthy post, I made reference to 'the best of all possible worlds'. I will close with a comment from Mr. Oppenheimer in the context of being head of a different project that produced a real bomb: "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds; the pessimist knows it."
Regards. |
