I'm not overly familiar with Melissa Davis and from what I've seen, I'm not exactly sure that what she does could really be called unbiased reporting, however, perhaps she tries. I understand how cutthroat the news business is now and, reporters have to try and make a living somehow doing what they like to do. Unfortunately, Streetsweeper has some shady ties behind it appears, and, it's possible that while she may try, an unbiased opinion may be almost impossible to truly have, plus, it's difficult to achieve true credibility needed off of a website like that. But, I want to believe that she tries.
One thing that keeps her articles from gaining too much credibility at this point (on AWSL that is), is her sources. The people she quotes are no more reputable than AWSL management, in most cases, a whole lot less reputable. She also mentions MEVT and in doing so references Joel Gardner as another reference, whose company has reversed split, pumped and dumped again just recently, etc.
Why, as an investor or potential investor, would I believe Hybridyne over AWSL? Imo, AWSL's success over the past year places it in the much more reputable position. She did reference a CNBC contributor, who, did not understand why AWSL was trading without financials out. Apparently, IMO, he was told the AWSL story and situation from Melissa using her view and already biased opinion, commented on it in said manner. Understandable, absolutely. I would have said the same thing in his situation, as I'm sure anyone, without even rudimentary knowledge of AWSL, would have.
Thus, you see why it's really quite hard to really come to any solid conclusion based on her reporting of AWSL. Melissa writes very well, it's interesting reading, I think that she's trying to truly do well, but, her sources really have to have a better reputation, need to be more familiar with AWSL if they are reputable, to really be taken as serious investigative journalism. Until then, most, (sorry Melissa if you read this) will view it as a ragsheet with really no serious or objective facts. If she should someday find out that perhaps her sources did mislead her and, that she perhaps was mistaken, as an journalist who wishes to be taken seriously with respect, a retraction article would be most helpful in achieving that standard. If she's wrong, a true respected reporter would admit it. If they don't and they're wrong, well, it makes taking them seriously in the future virtually impossible to do. If she's right, well, then she'll be respected more as well. However, there's no evidence that she's right yet and the WV court judgement is certainly detrimental to her reputation as an objective reporter.
I'm not an AWSL insider, I know no one personally there, just giving my opinion on this matter and the reporter's stories that you love to reference so frequently.
