<HTML>Kudo's to the skeptics for making fair comment on what is a valid issue, as Peter wrote...
"This has to do with Hancock's claims that Vyse forged the marks. He has since accepted critisim from Stower and issued a position statement stating same. Since his statement was made however, the work continues to remain present in the main body of his work, thereby misleading new readers.
"Credit is due for publishing the letter in revised editions, but readers should not have to search through the fowards, appendix and introduction to find what published material found in the main body of work the author agrees with."
ASSUMING THIS IS TRUE, I score thus far in favor of Maat for the following reason:
Graham, as a journalist with 20 to 30 years experience you should be an expert in the art of presentation, and equally knowledgeable of how the viewing audience resonds to presented material. It is not enough to place counterbalancing facts in obsucre places for the simple reason that known that most people won't go rummaging around looking for said material. You should know that only the vast minority of people will make this effort, and therefore you can be seen as proactively exploiting this propensity.
The media works by calling things to people's attention, and in some cases it seeks to have that effect and to protect itself by adding obscure parentheticals in remote places that will proved technical defenses, but not truly ethical ones. The whole approach is basically the same as the 'buyer beware' principle so often exploited by used car salesmen types, where the 'candy' is carefully placed directly in full view and the bit about 'tooth decay' is buried in the fine print.</HTML>
