|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 26 2012 @ 07:01 PM EST |
Agreed that the issue here is transparency and accountability. When you know an
opinion is coming from, say, Apple media relations, you understand that it is
the partisan position of Apple, right or wrong. Mueller is free to take
whatever money he wants to "consult." What he cannot properly do is
do is accept money from stakeholders in a dispute and also present himself as
neutral because he has an interest in the issues or at least the companies and
firms paying him do. One of the prior posts to this thread suggests that this
is somehow too remote to suggest bias, but clearly no one would accept as fair
or impartial any judge with those types of financial ties to a company or firm.
It also is not persuasive to say that Mueller, having received payments, is no
different from anyone else because everyone has an agenda. Many or most people
of course have agendas, which are hopefully based on an assessment of the
merits. But that not the same as having an agenda based on financial ties.
Mueller has a conflict of interest, and no amount of arguing or spinning
otherwise can change that. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: albert on Monday, November 26 2012 @ 09:30 PM EST |
<...Florian often posts opinions based on information of a very grey nature.
Often he provides very credible links, and this is the problem - he does this
enough to look like an unbiased, objective journalist (or at the least
commentator). But he also posts commentary based on information from who knows
where, and the media (lulled into a false sense of security) lap it up...>
As I pointed out before, he is a skilled propagandist. They avoid facts that
would lead them to the 'wrong' conclusions. I would expect a commentator,
analyst, blogger, consultant, to be right at least _some_ of the time,
otherwise, why bother? His track record on predictions shows his true colors. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|