Tuesday, May 06, 2008New TDR Issue Finally UpAfter 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:
Posted by Nisanth A. Reddy at 5:12 PM Comments From letters to the editor: Posted by Good story on Venkatesan. Thanks for the additional detail. Posted by That is the story. Katy O'Donnell was informed of the problem, but no correction has been printed. Posted by So the D asked directly for comment, Ms. Esfahani-Smith immediately gave a comment, and the D refused to publish it...? Posted by 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.) Posted by Thanks for the clarification. Posted by And by "relevation portion," I think what I mean is, "relevant portion." Sorry for the typo. Posted by Wilson Hall in Mike's article was designed by Samuel J.F. Thayer, not Frederick Langzett[e]l. Posted by 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. Posted by 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 Posted by 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. Posted by "Between my editorial and my article, I have said all that I currently have to say." Posted by 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.” Posted by 1:23, I had the same reaction to Zak Moore's moronic post. Posted by "What the D wanted was some sort of response to the allegations of reckless journalism, and you did indeed refuse to comment on that." Posted by 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. Posted by @ anon: Pretty sure she answers the two letters in the letter to the editor section. You should read it. Posted by 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." Posted by 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. Posted by To the anonymous commenters, please observe the comments policy. Posted by 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. Posted by If the same whistleblower who originally uncovered the fraud Posted by "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. Posted by 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? Posted by 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. Posted by Do you really wonder? Posted by Post a Comment (we enforce our comments policy) |
Dartlog ToolsHanover NewsDartmouth LinksNota BeneArticles of note—culled from the Internet by TDR. Is the Criminal-Justice System Racist? What the heck is metaethics anyway? Abortion, a thoughtful commentary. An anthropological expedition into suberbia. A sad day for a dead man. Just how incapable are government bodies? Advertisement  Dartmouth BlogsFavorites
Advertisement |
|
Copyright © 1996-2008 The Dartmouth Review |
|
