Forget the Facts: Pile on the Bull Train

Chuck Talk writes “Okay, I wanted to name this piece something else entirely, but given the fact that I have a sense of taste, I could not bring myself to do that. Certainly, it would have attracted the attention of those who prefer inflammatory statements, but it doesnt really convey anything more than an emotional appeal. When you need to make an appeal to reason, the most successful method is to expose the facts. That has always been my mission here, to ensure that there was a fair hearing of the contradictions to the claims made by those who seek to deny the truth.

Today, I was somewhat annoyed at the rather pitiful choice of Forbes online, for claiming that the SCO Group was a Stock To Watch. Interestingly, the article chose to entirely ignore the facts of the case and instead focus on the sensationalism of the claims (entirely unproven) made by the Lindon, Utah, cowboy litigators. The article barely touches on the facts that the additional claims may have little merit, saying only briefly that the Judge will rule within a week whether these claims may be added to the case.

I know that Forbes wishes to sell their advertising, but choosing this stock out of all of the stocks in the world to back as a stock to watch leaves me wondering. It leaves me wondering whether someone at the Forbes editorial staff has bought into the SCO Group play so heavily that they will utilize their presence online to pump the price of the stock itself. In fact, there needs to be a stated point of reference as to why the Forbes staff believes that this is a stock to watch.

I know that Judges and lawyers are required to recuse themselves when there is even a hint of a possible conflict of interest so why not reporters? Are they not subject to the rules of full disclosure as well? Should they not be made to state whether they, or their parent company, board members, officers, directors, employees or themselves hold a stake in a company in which they are exercising favorable reporting?”