Tuesday, May 06, 2008

New TDR Issue Finally Up

After some technical difficulties with our server, we have finally been able to upload the full issue to our website. Some of the new articles available for your reading pleasure are:

26 comments:

Anonymous said...

From letters to the editor:

Editor’s Response: Contrary to what the Daily Dartmouth reported, Ms. Esfahani-Smith in fact commented; she gave what she thought was a reasonable response under the circumstances. She did not refuse to comment; rather, the Daily D refused to publish her comments

Anyone care to elaborate on this?

Anonymous said...

Good story on Venkatesan. Thanks for the additional detail.

A.S. Erickson said...

That is the story. Katy O'Donnell was informed of the problem, but no correction has been printed.

Anonymous said...

So the D asked directly for comment, Ms. Esfahani-Smith immediately gave a comment, and the D refused to publish it...?

or is it more complicated somehow?

Emily Esfahani-Smith said...

Here is the relevation portion of the e-mail I sent to Will and Katy after Will's article was published. The e-mail is from 4/23/08, the day Will's article was published. (I initially just posted the e-mail, without this preface, on dartlog; it seemed confusing, so I deleted that original post, and added this, to explain what's going on below.)

"The editor-in-chief of The Review, Emily Esfahani-Smith '09, who authored the article, refused to comment."

Hi Will, Hi Katy,

I hope you both are well.

As a matter of journalistic integrity and ethics, I'd just like to point out a distinction between "refusing to comment" and actually commenting. When you asked for my comments, Will, I *commented* as below:

"Between my editorial and my article, I have said all that I currently have to say."

That is, I referred you to my article.

If I had refused to comment, I would have said, "I refuse to comment" or "I decline commenting" etc. etc.

What you write above, Will, is a misrepresentation of what I said.

I just wanted to point this out. You may choose to change or not change the phrasing above in the online edition, or you may choose to put up or not put this up as a correction in tomorrow's issue, or, finally, you may choose to misrepresent or not misrepresent the truth in the future.

Thanks, and take care.

Emily

Anonymous said...

Thanks for the clarification.

Emily Esfahani-Smith said...

And by "relevation portion," I think what I mean is, "relevant portion." Sorry for the typo.

Anonymous said...

Wilson Hall in Mike's article was designed by Samuel J.F. Thayer, not Frederick Langzett[e]l.

MOOSE123 said...

I enjoy reading the Review. Your articles are sometimes cogent, sometimes comic, and almost always interesting. However, with your unsupported attack on Ed Haldeman you have clearly gone off the deep end. I urge you to apologize for your actions, or at the very least to drop the matter. Your editorial activities can be better spent on more defensible matters.

Anonymous said...

From what I gathered, the point wasn't to say that these things are absolutely true, but that we should be skeptical of Haldeman's politics. I think Ms. Smith has merit in pointing out suspicious activities that no one else dares say on a campus where accusations are considered inherently bad

Anonymous said...

But there are no "suspicious activities." That's why the article is problematic: by providing a forum for the unsubstantiated theories of one disgruntled and unreliable critic with a clear interest in building opinion against Haldeman, it created what it claimed to report on.

Anonymous said...

"Between my editorial and my article, I have said all that I currently have to say."

I have a hard time distinguishing any substantive difference between that statement and "I refuse to comment." I guess they could have said, "she refused to comment further" but again, not much difference. What the D wanted was some sort of response to the allegations of reckless journalism, and you did indeed refuse to comment on that.

Anonymous said...

The Battle of Britain could have been stopped in nine seconds. All it would have taken was a phone call from Churchill to Hitler that said: “We are going to concede to the Declaration of War by the Axis powers. We will not fight you on the beaches: Britain is yours.”

Anonymous said...

1:23, I had the same reaction to Zak Moore's moronic post.

Emily Esfahani-Smith said...

"What the D wanted was some sort of response to the allegations of reckless journalism, and you did indeed refuse to comment on that."

If this is what the writers at the D wanted, they certainly did not ask for it. I may be wrong, but I think it's impossible to refuse to comment on a question that was never asked.

Off to class -E

Anonymous said...

My bad; I'm sure the question was something alongs the lines of, "Would you care to comment?" Or perhaps you could even tell us what the question was, so we won't have to keep guessing. I still think the difference between "I have said all that I currently have to say" and "refused to comment" is semantics.

I am still definitely interested in hearing what your comments would be to the questions, "What do you think of the two letters written to you refuting the allegations your source made?" and "Was the motivation behind this article and editorial an attempt to influence the AOA election?" But I don't really expect to.

Anonymous said...

@ anon: Pretty sure she answers the two letters in the letter to the editor section. You should read it.

Anonymous said...

The gist of the "response" is, Haldeman was there in Fall 2002 (although elsewhere the response says Fall 2001, contrary to what the letters say), and there may have been market timing in the spring of 2003 (in spite of what the investigation found, which was 2000 and 2001), and some fund names changed. And, oh, yes, we forgot to mention in our article a shadowy high-level former insider who says, "You can guess what my response would be."

No we can't! That would be shoddy journalism.

But why shouldn't some college students having phone conversations with one person not be able to uncover a host of facts unavilable to the SEC and the Mass Attorney General's Office whose "... investigations included reviews of hundreds of thousands of pages of documents and interviews and sworn testimony of many dozens of witnesses, including Mr. Peter Scannell, the apparent source for the Review’s April 21 story"?

Anonymous said...

Professional experts spent millions looking into the allegations against Putnam. I doubt even a college student would think she got some kind of "scoop" or discovered some fact they missed. It just seems like one person's attempt to smear Haldeman.

A.S. Erickson said...

To the anonymous commenters, please observe the comments policy.

d alum said...

Come on. It would have been negligent if they didn't report the story. If the same whistleblower who originally uncovered the fraud comes to you with more allegations, you really have no choice but to air those allegations.

Creative Name said...

If the same whistleblower who originally uncovered the fraud

What fraud? Isn't the non-existence of a fraud what is at issue, here?

Emily, you clearly did refuse to comment. What should the Dartmouth have reported? "For more information, check out Emily's article in the Review." Please. You had an opportunity to comment to a reporter, and you did not take it.

As for the comments about Zak Moore's post, I agree. It's unfortunate that Joe Malchow and his coterie of social rejects lack the testicular fortitude to allow commenting on their own blog, though it's a strategic decision on their part--it would be a travesty.

Anonymous said...

"d alum," generally when a whistleblower reports "allegations" to a newspaper, the responsible thing for the newspaper to do is to investigate and get some corroboration, then report. If the Review's just parroting unsourced rumors, that's negligent... and it's worse than negligent if it's done deliberately to influence the AoA election.

The response does little to dispel that notion. I hope we hear more explanation of this later.

D said...

I'm confused about people saying how the rumors are unsourced. Isn't Scannell the source--and isn't he the same person who uncovered the original fraud at putnam?

Anonymous said...

Look, Scannell doesn't have any "new" allegations, he just has leftovers. The ideas he dumped on Emily were just the ones the regulators didn't buy. Just because he got some things right doesn't mean all of his conspiracy theories are true, and when you account for the anti-Putnam bias of his obsessive crusade, and the air time it's getting him, you have to wonder why Emily put any stock in what he said.

Conspirator said...

Do you really wonder?

I don't.