I just got a call from Fred Dicker. Fred says that Insider Z is wrong about him receiving a copy of a draft MTA audit.
Fred denies receiving any such audit, and I believe him. I promised Fred that I’d post a blog entry saying as much. And I have now done so.
Fred was rather irate and said some other things to me. He said it was wrong that I posted Insider Z’s account in the first place. He said I was wrong to rely on unnamed sources.
On this specific point, I’m a little taken aback. For Fred to chastise me for using unnamed sources is a little like … well, you can use your own metaphor here. The point is that Fred is famous for using unnamed sources.
Also, it struck me as rather odd that Fred would make such a big deal about the audit. If he didn’t receive a copy, and, again, I take him at his word that he didn’t, then he had the contents of the audit described to him in great detail. Otherwise, how could he write his column, which cited the findings of the audit?
The thing that really bothered me about Fred’s call was that he missed the entire point of my blog and the new “Insider” series.
In this regard, I’m trying to provide a blackboard on which people can write their opinions.
Now I understand that I, as the host, have an obligation here. And I won’t tolerate invective. I won’t run someone’s screed. But if a person with an interesting insider perspective wants to tell his or her story or theory, I will post it with my usual disclaimer that I neither support nor oppose their viewpoint, nor do I vouch for its veracity I’ll leave that to the mainstream media.
And here’s the key thing: My goal is to provide a truly open forum. I’m not going to back off of that commitment – even if some influential people don’t like it.