Dear Dennis Abd ul-Rahman Lomax,
If you can discuss something factual about my work, please do so. I'm more
than happy to discuss and debate facts.
If not, what you have written here amounts to nothing but a personal attack
and an expression of hatred. Anybody who knows me and my work can recognize
this as smoke and noise. I also suggest that this, your second unprovoked
personal assault to me on this list, may be approaching the limits of what
is socially acceptable behavior here.
I have found that when I expose or report truths that people don't want
exposed - or truths which some people just cannot face - if they can't
disprove my facts then they react just like you have done - with invective
and hostility, and attack the messenger.
Consequently, I take your response as a complement, regardless of your
unpleasantness.
Steve
At 08:09 PM 10/22/2009, you wrote:
At 02:37 PM 10/22/2009, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Steven Krivit wrote:
With all due respects, you do not seem to understand the fact that, as a
journalist, I posted my writing publicly and openly and that, as I
journalist - serving the broader public - I expect to keep things
public and open.
Krivit's report is made-up nonsense plus some personal details that are
not anyone's business. A journalist is not supposed to publish every
weird notion that crosses his mind without confirmation. This is not
journalism; it is a stream of consciousness blog.
Rothwell is accurate, unfortunately. Something has gone very, very wrong
at New Energy Times. Krivit is, I assume, accurately reporting what he
recalls of what he's seen, but also what he has said and thought, he's
becoming the topic of his own writing, and it is becoming more and more
unbalanced in that way. He's lost journalistic objectivity, and that's
very damaging.
I'd stopped responding publicly about his behavior, and wrote privately to
him; he'd pointed to a document on journalistic ethics, claiming that this
was his guide, and I'm sure it is, regarding some of his practices, such
as refusing to accept a retainer from Energetics Technologies, and I
assume, fully, that those events happened. Krivit, however, with regard to
criticism of his reporting on Fleischmann, and his drawing of drastic
conclusions from what appears to be a few days of indisposition or
illness, has become increasingly hostile and unresponsive.
I pointed out to him aspects of the journalistic ethics guide that he'd
mentioned that he was not fulfilling well. He did not respond to that. But
today, I asked him if he had any CR-39 left over from the Galileo Project,
because he'd bought quite a bit, and it's expensive.... his response:
with friends like you, who needs enemies?
take a hike
The criticism I had previously offered was sincere and intended to help
him avoid what could be a disaster for New Energy Times if he continues on
his course; and if he was satisfied that my objections were invalid, he's
the one responsible for his actions, not me, and I consider it my duty to
my friends to warn them when I see them sawing off the tree limb they are
sitting on.
This isn't about defending Dardik or McKubre or the other figures. It's
not about trying to stop any investigation of what may indeed involve some
questionable activities or conflicts of interest, and it's not about
Krivit reporting relevant facts. I've thought, maybe this is just his
blog, he can express his opinions, right? Well, the blog is part of the
NET web site. It colors NET, and the web site is the publication.
Krivit was turned away in England, and he's striking back, I'm afraid, he
is going to get even. It's conduct unbecoming a professional; I thought
the field was benefitting from the work of a professional journalist; but
I'm afraid it's being lost. Perhaps Krivit has some friends who are close
enough to him and whom he trusts sufficiently that they can explain to him
what he's doing. If not, I don't see much hope.
I have known some real journalists in my time, including distinguished
people in the mass media, and anti-establishment people similar to I. F.
Stone. (I did not know him, but I knew his friends and enemies.) These
people do not operate by Krivit's rules. They do not publish half-baked
fluff. A responsible journalist sometimes publishes, and sometimes
refrains from publishing. Publishing everything you hear without
distinction or careful consideration makes you an Internet server, not a
journalist. Even when you know something to be a fact, it may be
personal, or irrelevant, or unimportant, or likely to be misunderstood
out of context, so it should be keep confidential.
There is plenty of room for disagreement about the exact boundaries with
regard to what Krivit has reported. Rothwell knows Fleischmann and the
family situation, probably better than Krivit. My concern, though, is the
political fallout of Krivit's apparent feud, and it's a feud, all right,
this is not merely investigative reporting. It's polemic, and blatantly
so. He's gone over the edge.
Those who support his work should pay close attention, if he can't be
guided through this, it's going down the tubes. The tide is turning, CF is
becoming respectable, and nothing is likely to stop that, but some
organizations will survive and some not.
