re: Zwan Responds on DIGL Stock Deals"In order to set the record straight, Light Reading has updated the story with the following correction and clarifications:"
Translation: in order to avoid getting our butts sued off.....
Somebody at LR really screwed the pooch on this one.
re: Zwan Responds on DIGL Stock DealsStuck between a rock and a hard place, definitely. While Zwan is by no means a saint (the message boards will back this up), Light Reading has to take some heat for this one.
I think we all know that that Light Reading flames everyone - it's their form of investigative journalism, and we all seem to like it (the site probably has pretty healthy traffic). Nevertheless, facts are facts, and if you want to take the time to develop a truly educated opinion about DGL and Zwan, go check out the records for yourself. Otherwise, chalk this one up as shifty journalism regarding a shifty character.
As for the rest of us, I think we've got plenty of bigger fires to put out in our own back yards.
re: Zwan Responds on DIGL Stock DealsWell, according to the lawyer, you can verify all of his claims with publicly available information. If true, you must ask yourself why LightReading choose to ignore publicly available information.
Further, you must begin to wonder how what constitutes a SEARCH for the truth in the eyes of that reporter or LightReading.
And to advance that line of thought: Is this a problem with LightReading, or just with one individual at LightReading? (if its a problem at all) LightReading may only be guilty of not exercising their journalistic integrity muscle.
Lets hope its an isolated incident, not characteristic of LIghtReading or any individual member of the staff.
re: Zwan Responds on DIGL Stock DealsLR should stick to reporting on technological matters, where they seem to have some expertise - they are way out of their league reporting on financial matters - or at least are unwilling or unable to do the homework necessary for anything beyond yellow journalism. But perhaps they don't care about that.
re: Zwan Responds on DIGL Stock DealsWe demand a retraction and correction of the false information in your story within two days, and on or before Friday, August 23, 2002.
That's 5 days late! I bet there was some other nasty letters sent in the meantime that we aren't even aware of.
re: Zwan Responds on DIGL Stock DealsSome of you may have noticed that periodically LightReading runs into a company and/or executive who has the time and resources to openly challenge their journalistic integrity and threaten even more.
Many of the company's and executives who have been misportrayed or worse by LightReading simply withdraw from interaction with LightReading. This provides Mr. Saunders with more grist and spin opportunities...check his most recent column.
LightReading would have us believe they are the 'no spin zone' of the optical or net infrastructure business.
re: Zwan Responds on DIGL Stock DealsI keep expecting to see a press release like this:
Dr. Zwan, addressing world leaders from his secret military base, informed the U.N. that unless his demands for world domination were met, he would deploy the Doomsday Device.
"Bwahahahaha!" cackled Dr. Zwan "Soon I will control the world! Fools! Bow down before your new master, or die!"
re: Zwan Responds on DIGL Stock DealsAs someone who straddles both the technology and finance areas in this business I agree wholeheartedly with the comment as expressed below.
Mess up with a technical specification, or a feature description and I suspect this is often just a simple retraction or correction - no bones broken.
Mess up with the financial integrity of a publicy traded company and you are exposed to all kinds of legal trouble, and not just from the company itself, either.
This isn't so say that financial improprieties shouldn't be investigated, but in my experience this is just as much a skill learned and honed through proper training and experience as an ability to say, compare two different optical switching technologies.
My take - LR, if you're going to do a financial expose, make absolutely sure you have someone who knows their way through the morass of information and the laws regarding the subject. Then get it checked by a lawyer before you publish!!
Damn - did I really just put in an advert for the legal profession? I'm getting old.
________________
LR should stick to reporting on technological matters, where they seem to have some expertise - they are way out of their league reporting on financial matters -
So who should we believe now???
The menacing lawyer or the journalist?
The powerful one or the one searching for the true?