Thursday, January 04, 2007

Who Works For Whom?

I read this earlier this morning, and wasn't going to comment on it, mostly because I am tiring of the subject, but a reader brought up a good point in the comments. From the latest update by Chris Story on the Hank Paulson/Leo Wanta story:

4th January 2007: All details of the Paulson arrest scenario and the contents of the Diary coverage on this website, together with all the previous Wanta postings, are pre-approved by Michael C. Cottrell, M.S., Treasurer and Executive Vice President, AmeriTrust Groupe, Inc, and by Ambassador Leo Emil Wanta. We will not be responding to further emails on this subject. When we have been briefed and have prepared any further posting, and have obtained written approval, we will post.

The main question here, is why does Story have to get Wanta's permission? Is he working for him? What type of a journalist hands over his right to report a story to a corporation, especially one who is reporting on corporate and government fraud?

Story reported earlier that he had multiple sources for this story:

Although we have been 'sitting on' this intelligence since the Christmas weekend, pending further information, we now have very high-level confirmations from both London and Washington, and a total of seven sources for this intelligence.

Since AmeriTrust Groupe only has 2 employees, Wanta and Cottrell, this means that he is claiming to have received this information from at least 5 people, not involved in the corporation. So why does he need their permission to report information he got from others?

Story hilariously continues with this post, supposedly from a supporter.

US FRIEND: 'You have put a tremendous amount of time into these Wanta articles, so it's not your job to prove you're right; it's the job of your detractors to prove you wrong. I'm sure there's a lot ofprofessional jealousy involved, so stand your ground'. Of course the mad detractors, who are in a state of white panic, cannot prove that the Editor is wrong. This is an impossibility.

First of all, there is no professional jealously involved on my part. I don't write for an overpriced paranoid journal in the UK, so we aren't even in the same profession. Secondly, since when was it the case that people promoting stories with absolutely no foundation are not obligated to support their argument? He has failed to provide even the meekest support for any of his claims. Not one shred of evidence. There is nobody else on the planet, outside of the few directly involved, who are backing his story. I have made plenty of posts showing that these stories are extremely questionable, but the burden of proof does not lie on me.

To quote the great Carl Sagan:

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof."