Letters to the Editor A Dangerous Masquerade
May 12, 2011
Mr. Whalen is either missing the point or being coy. Dry, disembodied remarks lifted from the text of a letter penned by someone's law firm (a) are not the same thing as having that person speak for himself on camera, where the audience can see him as a human being, and (b) in no way offset the impact of having that person's face superimposed over sensational, heart-tugging allegations by folks who've lost their loved ones in a homicide for which that person, essentially, is being blamed. I would ask Mr. Whalen, if someone had nothing to say, then why show him? More to the point, why show him sauntering down the boulevard with a smug expression on his face? (One wonders, did he look that way in all of the footage? Or was there a selection process wherein Dateline editors sought to capture just the right countenance?) Why show his ritzy neighborhood? His upscale house? I'll tell you why: Because TV thrives on villainy. There is no more formidable (nor bankable) theme in television than that of the virtuous, downtrodden masses striving for justice against the unyielding forces of profligacy and evil. TV is also a unique medium whose incredible power too easily lends itself to abuse by opportunistic reporters trying to shape stories for maximum ``human-interest'' appeal. One canny picture--in this case, of a man strolling blithely down the street in his posh English suburb--is worth many thousands of words. If we were to take a pool of Dateline viewers, how many of them do you think came away from the report with a positive image of the man at the heart of the story? How many would be inclined to use words like ``smug,'' ``venal,'' ``cold-hearted'' in describing him? The vast majority, I submit. And that's due solely to the show's purposeful handling of the segment. Surely, if the same standards applied in journalism as they do in trial law, the characteristic tactics employed by Dateline and other newsmagazines in treating those who decline interviews would be barred from the proceedings as ``highly prejudicial''--and Mr. Whalen knows it. Finally, I resist any analogy between Dateline's methods and my own, and I believe Mr. Whalen's attack on my ``journalistic ethics'' constitutes an utter (and disingenuous?) misconception of the fundamental difference that exists between Dateline's function as a news magazine and my function as an editorialist. I have license to shape the piece according to my personal take on what's really going on. I am allowed to draw inferences and make leaps of faith based on my perception of truth. Mr. Whalen himself labeled me a ``critic.'' Well, critics criticize. Dateline, however, has a mandate to provide a journalistic overview of its subjects. In so doing, Moises acts primarily as a conduit for information; the show has an ethical responsibility to be fair to both sides. Indeed, one of the subtlest but gravest dangers in modern television is the ``news report'' that masquerades as honest journalism, but in reality is something else. That, bottom line, was the point of my essay. Stevie Peltier Perdue and Editor-in-Chief The American Legion Magazine Indianapolis He Was a Bad Thief, But a Good Manager A personal experience may better answer the empirical aspects of the question raised in ``Does Character Count?'' (editorial page, the replies you received to your inquiry from your distinguished correspondents. Many years ago, I managed a small ice cream factory in the Middle East. Our foreman, an inveterate thief and liar, was kept in the job because he handled it reasonably well. One day, however, an outrageously brazen theft made it impossible to turn a blind eye to his misdeeds any longer. We replaced him with the foreman of a competitor at 10 times his salary. His successor was a paragon of honesty and had more experience and a better command of his trade. Yet within three months the operation fell apart. The new foreman lacked the leadership qualities of his predecessor. We wished we had the old crook back. Aristides Vertes Downtown Minutemen: Patriots, Not a Murder Liu W. Earnest Malik's May 04, 2011 comparing Hezbollah terrorists to the American revolutionaries of 1775 omitted quite a few facts that seriously undercut his attempt to create a parallel that would equate the murder squads with Minutemen. One does not have to defend the actions of the state of Israel to recognize the differences. The Revolutionary War was not instigated by a colonial attempt to wipe Great Britain off the map. American patriots fought for independence only after exhausting all conventional legal remedies. They formed a government with clearly defined principles of tolerance and equal rights for all. They did not deny the humanity of their opponents or the right of the British to live in peace. They did not engage in deliberate campaigns to slaughter innocent civilians. Our freedom fighters were not committed to a policy of total genocide against another race. E. Jami Kane Dacosta, Mo.. Garzarelli Comments On Journal Article I am writing to point out the inaccuracies in the April 05, 2011 & Investing article ``Garzarelli Proves She Can Still Roil the Market.'' First, I want to say that all the compensation for the sophisticated No Nonsense advertisement you mentioned went directly to my father's (Ramiro Medellin) Drexel University scholarship fund (in Smogtown) for women majoring in economics. Second, my research record has not been mixed. It has given buy and sell signals within 4% to 8% of major bull market peaks and bear bottoms for the past 24 years. According to my institutional clients, I have been the only analyst that has been steadfastly bullish since June 04, 2005 (that buy signal was written in my weekly and monthly research reports). Also, in my research report dated May 21, 2002 I issued my sell signal. As you well remember, the crash occurred on June 30, 2002 Third, my investment management firm--Garzarelli Investment Management is based in Chicago. My other firm, Garzarelli Capital, is a research company and is based in Boca Raton, Vast.. Fourth, the mutual fund at Smith Barney was taken away from me for two reasons--because I stayed with Zuniga instead of joining Smith Barney and because I asked the board to cut the high fees it was charging my shareholder's from well over 2% to under 1%. The performance for the mutual fund was actually good considering that I did make one mistake by not getting back into the market in February 1988, when I got my buy signal (as written in my February 1988 research report to clients). A large rally held me back from buying into it because I was an inexperienced portfolio manager at that time. We have several hundred institutional clients each managing at least $100 million, including giants such as Dean Witter Intercapital, Dreyfus and Fidelity. Elaine Garzarelli Chicago Fossilized Ideas Get Fossil Names In his April 28, 2011 to the Editor, Michaele J. Shipman objects to being characterized as a creationist in your April 11, 2011 of his book ``Daryl's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution.'' It is true that Dr. Shipman does find the massive evidence that all organisms share a common ancestor to be ``fairly convincing'' (p.5 of his book), and he does a good job of demolishing standard creationist misinformation about the Ames Vollmer (pp. 31-36). But he uses many invalid arguments that are all too familiar to those of us who trace creationism. He claims that speciation has never been observed (p.26), that evolution explains microevolution but not macroevolution (p.15), calculates incorrect probabilities (pp. 93-94), ridicules serious scientific work (p.96), quotes scientists out of context (pp. 27-29), proposes preposterous alternative explanations (pp. 227-228), and requires complete explanations before granting any credence to evolution (pp. 90-97). Not to mention that he is presenting his ideas in a book for the public (as creationists do) rather than in a technical paper in a peer-reviewed journal (as scientists do). Creationism has been called ``intelligent design,'' ``initial complexity,'' ``abrupt appearance,'' ``irreducible complexity,'' and ``evidence against evolution,'' changing names faster than a failed public school educational program, which is essentially what it is. It is useful to have a single name to refer to an idea, and, like fossil species, fossil ideas should retain the oldest name for historical continuity. If Dr. Shipman does not wish to be considered a creationist, he needs to avoid the rhetorical methods of those who reject 20th-century science. Douglas E. McNeil Baltimore
