Replies to post #3708 on Wave Systems Corp. (fka WAVXQ)

[november 4th]

Also...perhaps the IBM PR on Monday should have specified the clarififcations Lark made in his comments today.

N4

[mongo98]

Spin,

I don't know, but I am thinking Mr. Callahan might call the appropriate person, introduce himself and request confirmation next time.

Mongo

[Snackman]

Here is SPIN's e-mail
======================

Dear Ms. Sheng,

I read your Wave Systems "correction" with dismay and an increasing lack of faith in U.S. journalism. It was
*your* error that resulted in the inaccurate wire
report on Wave Systems, not inarticulate press release
writing or misleading executive rhetoric.

I am a shareholder of Wave Systems (as well as former
Editor-in-Chief of a publication that was a winner of
multiple Columbia Univ. Scholastic Press Assoc. Gold
Medals) and am appalled with the headline of your
"corrected" wire blurb.

I read the IBM release yesterday and did not infer
that a contract had been inked. Apparently you did,
however, and then chose not to confirm this salient
"fact" with either company.

Your shifting responsibility to Wave Systems instead
of accepting it, as you clearly should have, suggests
a failed journalistic ethos. Maybe not in Jayson
Blair territory, but certainly well, well, WELL below
par.

I would certainly have more respect for Dow Jones if
its scribe had assumed the responsibility for the
incorrect inference as well as the total failure to
confirm the same.

There was nothing misleading about the Wave Systems PR
and the paragraph that closes the "correction" seems
wholly unnecessary and snide.

I doubt you will respond to this missive, but it does
not change the fact that you dropped the ball and the
record now indicates that it was at the hands of
another.

Passing the buck does not engender the reader's faith,
but rather leads to mistrust of Dow Jones.

The egg is on your face, even though you (or your
editors) chose to pen a headline that shifts the
responsibility.

Regards,