Post by jcline on May 4, 2006 21:41:23 GMT -4
STOCKGATE TODAY
An online newspaper reporting the issues of Securities Fraud
SABEW Conference: A Closer look at inner thoughts of the Financial Media – May 4, 2006
David Patch
What is it we expect out of the media? For decades, the role the media plays in our society has been challenged from their coverage on War and Politics to the coverage of daily events and our financial markets. Questions of bias in the manner in how and when coverage is initiated repeatedly raises the eyebrows of the general population. Are we getting the whole story or a watered down version covering only what they want us to know.
Recently, the Society of American Business Editors and Writers (SABEW) held their annual conference where much of the subject matters in the conference centered on the recent subpoenas served by the Securities and Exchange Commission on certain members of the financial press. One of the Guest speakers to this conference was none other than SEC Chairman Christopher Cox.
In the Q&A period Marketwatch Journalist Herb Greenberg, and recipient of one such subpoena asked:
“If you're going to subpoena the communication we have with our sources, why should that not discourage sources in the future from communicating with us?”
In response to this question Cox Replied:
Well as you know from reading our policy, the architecture or the entire design is focused on making sure that the SEC, in its pursuit of the facts, gives as much space to journalists doing their jobs as we possibly can. That's the whole idea. And so, we're not going to go to journalists first, we're not going to go to journalists second, we're going to go to journalists dead last.
We are, however, going to explore the facts. And to the extent that the people we are investigating happen to be sources, then they may be.. that may render them people, because everybody's a potential source. What we want to do is respect the role that the journalist plays but also makes sure that we pursue the facts where they lead us.
The only notable coverage on this discussion was from the Detroit Free Press where columnist Susan Tompor commented on the subpoena issue by claiming “And frankly, the SEC’s quick response shows that the deal with Greenberg was simply too foolish for words.”
In a panel session where Chairman Cox was not in attendance, Herb Greenberg, a recipient of one such subpoena chided “Luckily the SEC came to its senses. The subpoena, while never withdrawn, was sort of tabled or new guidelines have come out from the SEC as it relates to journalists.”
By all reports out of the SEC the Chairman did not think the subpoenas were too foolish for words and all reports of a public rebuke of the SF Office, as reported by the media, has been categorically denied many times over by the Chairman and Commissioners including a March 3 speech by Commissioner Campos that was never covered by the media. The non-rebuke receiving ten-fold media coverage over the real circumstances as it happened.
Was the media self-serving by denying the public all sides to this story?
If you listen in on some of the dialogue that took place in a side conference on this subject you can get a better feel for how the media may perceive the general public. The session was on Dealing with Today’s New Business Journalist Bashers which in layman’s terms are those bloggers who have gone public to rebut that which is presented by the mainstream media.
The panel for this session consisted of Herb Greenberg, NY Post Editor Dan Colarusso, and NY Times columnist Joe Nocera. It is obvious by the panel mix that this was going to be a discussion with only one opinion and not an open debate with differing opinions. Full Transcripts of the quite interesting session can be read here.
When Business Editor Dan Colarusso described the on-line bloggers he stated “But it gets to the point where names and phone numbers—people’s reputations—are being dragged through the mud in a way we can’t ever do it, and might be even more justified. But we could never write it like that because we have a different set of standards.”
The NY Post Business columns of course being well recognized for the ability to negatively attack public figures where damaging reputations whether justified or not has been mastered to an art.
But it is not so much how Mr. Colarusso described those that differed in opinion with the NY Post but how he said he would deal with them.
According to the transcripts Colarusso stated “But they are interesting, people should know about them. The more they attack us, you know, we have barrels of ink and stacks of money, and all the resources in the World at our disposal, legal, and via our media, to crush them, or at least bring them to some degree where they cannot do this with impunity. And, at this point in time, the Post’s stance… I’m ready to sue one of them for libel or slander.”
Is this how the NY Post wants to go after those who disagree with their columnists opinions? The NY Post presents a single side to a developing issue without any appearance of objectivity and when a differing opinion is made public through a non-media vehicle the NY Post wants to bury these opinions. Freedom of Speech be damned when it is somebody else speaking.
The financial market developing story Colarusso and the other panelists focused primarily on was that of naked short selling and those opinions of the hundreds of thousands of injured investors and hundreds of injured companies who disagree with the financial press’ coverage of this growing situation.
Colarusso’s staff, Herb Greenberg, and Joe Nocero have all gone public disputing any claims of reality to the potential of a serious market issue involving naked shorting despite an increase in recent regulatory activities in this area, sweeping short selling reforms, and public comments by high ranking management at the SEC and NASD. Each has personally set out to publicly attack all the companies that have exercised their right to fight for what is perceived to be an injustice.
It would not be a stretch then to wonder whether the repeated use of their medium to publicly attack these CEO’s and companies is part of that “crush them” style Colarusso speaks of when people fight the opinions of the Media as presented to the public. How many other times has the use of the media tool been used to settle personal issues where the debate opportunity is as unbalanced as it is today?
Clearly some within the media believe that the tool they have before them is a tool that can be used to settle any argument through the repeated dissemination of a bias and prejudice opinion.
But when it comes to the law, what levels with the members of the press take to protect their sources or stories?
According to NY Times Reporter Diane Henriquez on a discussion of sources and subpoenas “A lot of us are turning to things like flash drives to keep sensitive email and even sensitive interview notes, early story drafts, to keep them off any piece of equipment that the Times might be required to turn over in response to a subpoena. “
So the question to Ms. Henriquez would be, Is it acceptable if in a story you are covering that the villain in your story had hidden information through the use of a flash memory card? Would you use this method of operation against them when you yourself admit that you take on such efforts to hide from possible detection?
Ms. Henriquez did have this to say behind closed doors on Naked shorting however, “Naked shorting has actually surfaced in regulatory coverage because it played a role in the destruction of a couple small clearing houses back at the height of the penny-stock mania. In the 90s there were a couple clearing firms that the SEC and the Fed and people who might feel somewhat overwhelmed by the tips of stock fraud—they get really upset when you threaten a clearing house.. because that has the capacity to destabilize the market in exponential ways, ‘cause then lots of people who weren’t involved in that particular little fraud get wiped out because the clearing firms failed.”
The fact that Ms. Henriquez admits to the problem and recognizes that the abuse was allowed to continue because the SEC feared a potential collapse of a clearing firm is inexcusable. The people of this nation became the collateral damage to maintain the financial well being of these billion dollar clearing firms and members of the media hid this from the people.
Henriquez closed out her comments on naked shorting by declaring to the audience of media nay-Sayers “So it’s a very tricky regulatory issue, certainly one that can be more expansively covered. But it’s out there, and if a reporter wants to educate himself how to answer the naked shorting accusations, you can do a little research and do that.” Her comments certainly coming as a challenge to the crowd to be more objective in their coverage before simply dismissing the issue out of peer pressure.
So there is an inside look at how the media perceives the people they report to and the subject matter they report on. The members of the financial press appear to live in a world where the rules of conduct apply to the people but a different rule of conduct applies to them.
To be objective here, the opinions stated in this conference do not represent all members of the financial media. I have remained in contact with several members of the financial press who have discussed the issues I believe in representing both sides of the story effectively. Like any story there are two sides and each need to be covered effectively. If I could find more brave soles who report as a profession, this amateur would gladly give up the torch and go on to better things in life. Until then, the investing public needs to be made aware of the pitfalls in the markets and I will continue to cover it for them
Read the full transcript and see if you become as appalled as I was to see who is in charge of the public dissemination of information to the people of this nation.
For more on this issue please visit the Host site at www.investigatethesec.com .
Copyright 2006
An online newspaper reporting the issues of Securities Fraud
SABEW Conference: A Closer look at inner thoughts of the Financial Media – May 4, 2006
David Patch
What is it we expect out of the media? For decades, the role the media plays in our society has been challenged from their coverage on War and Politics to the coverage of daily events and our financial markets. Questions of bias in the manner in how and when coverage is initiated repeatedly raises the eyebrows of the general population. Are we getting the whole story or a watered down version covering only what they want us to know.
Recently, the Society of American Business Editors and Writers (SABEW) held their annual conference where much of the subject matters in the conference centered on the recent subpoenas served by the Securities and Exchange Commission on certain members of the financial press. One of the Guest speakers to this conference was none other than SEC Chairman Christopher Cox.
In the Q&A period Marketwatch Journalist Herb Greenberg, and recipient of one such subpoena asked:
“If you're going to subpoena the communication we have with our sources, why should that not discourage sources in the future from communicating with us?”
In response to this question Cox Replied:
Well as you know from reading our policy, the architecture or the entire design is focused on making sure that the SEC, in its pursuit of the facts, gives as much space to journalists doing their jobs as we possibly can. That's the whole idea. And so, we're not going to go to journalists first, we're not going to go to journalists second, we're going to go to journalists dead last.
We are, however, going to explore the facts. And to the extent that the people we are investigating happen to be sources, then they may be.. that may render them people, because everybody's a potential source. What we want to do is respect the role that the journalist plays but also makes sure that we pursue the facts where they lead us.
The only notable coverage on this discussion was from the Detroit Free Press where columnist Susan Tompor commented on the subpoena issue by claiming “And frankly, the SEC’s quick response shows that the deal with Greenberg was simply too foolish for words.”
In a panel session where Chairman Cox was not in attendance, Herb Greenberg, a recipient of one such subpoena chided “Luckily the SEC came to its senses. The subpoena, while never withdrawn, was sort of tabled or new guidelines have come out from the SEC as it relates to journalists.”
By all reports out of the SEC the Chairman did not think the subpoenas were too foolish for words and all reports of a public rebuke of the SF Office, as reported by the media, has been categorically denied many times over by the Chairman and Commissioners including a March 3 speech by Commissioner Campos that was never covered by the media. The non-rebuke receiving ten-fold media coverage over the real circumstances as it happened.
Was the media self-serving by denying the public all sides to this story?
If you listen in on some of the dialogue that took place in a side conference on this subject you can get a better feel for how the media may perceive the general public. The session was on Dealing with Today’s New Business Journalist Bashers which in layman’s terms are those bloggers who have gone public to rebut that which is presented by the mainstream media.
The panel for this session consisted of Herb Greenberg, NY Post Editor Dan Colarusso, and NY Times columnist Joe Nocera. It is obvious by the panel mix that this was going to be a discussion with only one opinion and not an open debate with differing opinions. Full Transcripts of the quite interesting session can be read here.
When Business Editor Dan Colarusso described the on-line bloggers he stated “But it gets to the point where names and phone numbers—people’s reputations—are being dragged through the mud in a way we can’t ever do it, and might be even more justified. But we could never write it like that because we have a different set of standards.”
The NY Post Business columns of course being well recognized for the ability to negatively attack public figures where damaging reputations whether justified or not has been mastered to an art.
But it is not so much how Mr. Colarusso described those that differed in opinion with the NY Post but how he said he would deal with them.
According to the transcripts Colarusso stated “But they are interesting, people should know about them. The more they attack us, you know, we have barrels of ink and stacks of money, and all the resources in the World at our disposal, legal, and via our media, to crush them, or at least bring them to some degree where they cannot do this with impunity. And, at this point in time, the Post’s stance… I’m ready to sue one of them for libel or slander.”
Is this how the NY Post wants to go after those who disagree with their columnists opinions? The NY Post presents a single side to a developing issue without any appearance of objectivity and when a differing opinion is made public through a non-media vehicle the NY Post wants to bury these opinions. Freedom of Speech be damned when it is somebody else speaking.
The financial market developing story Colarusso and the other panelists focused primarily on was that of naked short selling and those opinions of the hundreds of thousands of injured investors and hundreds of injured companies who disagree with the financial press’ coverage of this growing situation.
Colarusso’s staff, Herb Greenberg, and Joe Nocero have all gone public disputing any claims of reality to the potential of a serious market issue involving naked shorting despite an increase in recent regulatory activities in this area, sweeping short selling reforms, and public comments by high ranking management at the SEC and NASD. Each has personally set out to publicly attack all the companies that have exercised their right to fight for what is perceived to be an injustice.
It would not be a stretch then to wonder whether the repeated use of their medium to publicly attack these CEO’s and companies is part of that “crush them” style Colarusso speaks of when people fight the opinions of the Media as presented to the public. How many other times has the use of the media tool been used to settle personal issues where the debate opportunity is as unbalanced as it is today?
Clearly some within the media believe that the tool they have before them is a tool that can be used to settle any argument through the repeated dissemination of a bias and prejudice opinion.
But when it comes to the law, what levels with the members of the press take to protect their sources or stories?
According to NY Times Reporter Diane Henriquez on a discussion of sources and subpoenas “A lot of us are turning to things like flash drives to keep sensitive email and even sensitive interview notes, early story drafts, to keep them off any piece of equipment that the Times might be required to turn over in response to a subpoena. “
So the question to Ms. Henriquez would be, Is it acceptable if in a story you are covering that the villain in your story had hidden information through the use of a flash memory card? Would you use this method of operation against them when you yourself admit that you take on such efforts to hide from possible detection?
Ms. Henriquez did have this to say behind closed doors on Naked shorting however, “Naked shorting has actually surfaced in regulatory coverage because it played a role in the destruction of a couple small clearing houses back at the height of the penny-stock mania. In the 90s there were a couple clearing firms that the SEC and the Fed and people who might feel somewhat overwhelmed by the tips of stock fraud—they get really upset when you threaten a clearing house.. because that has the capacity to destabilize the market in exponential ways, ‘cause then lots of people who weren’t involved in that particular little fraud get wiped out because the clearing firms failed.”
The fact that Ms. Henriquez admits to the problem and recognizes that the abuse was allowed to continue because the SEC feared a potential collapse of a clearing firm is inexcusable. The people of this nation became the collateral damage to maintain the financial well being of these billion dollar clearing firms and members of the media hid this from the people.
Henriquez closed out her comments on naked shorting by declaring to the audience of media nay-Sayers “So it’s a very tricky regulatory issue, certainly one that can be more expansively covered. But it’s out there, and if a reporter wants to educate himself how to answer the naked shorting accusations, you can do a little research and do that.” Her comments certainly coming as a challenge to the crowd to be more objective in their coverage before simply dismissing the issue out of peer pressure.
So there is an inside look at how the media perceives the people they report to and the subject matter they report on. The members of the financial press appear to live in a world where the rules of conduct apply to the people but a different rule of conduct applies to them.
To be objective here, the opinions stated in this conference do not represent all members of the financial media. I have remained in contact with several members of the financial press who have discussed the issues I believe in representing both sides of the story effectively. Like any story there are two sides and each need to be covered effectively. If I could find more brave soles who report as a profession, this amateur would gladly give up the torch and go on to better things in life. Until then, the investing public needs to be made aware of the pitfalls in the markets and I will continue to cover it for them
Read the full transcript and see if you become as appalled as I was to see who is in charge of the public dissemination of information to the people of this nation.
For more on this issue please visit the Host site at www.investigatethesec.com .
Copyright 2006