Very short OP says... hmmmmm you and I have a different definition of short.

Why is it being released in seven parts if it's useless without all parts?

I completely agree. I posted in the last DF thread a few opinions on DF. I am starting to question the value she adds to this issue. Seems like she regurgitates facts that are already known and a lot of times spins her opinions as facts. I have no doubt she has focused a significant portion of her time to the FT issue, but I don't see as much value she brings to the table as most people on here. I guess we will see when she releases more info.

I have a take on DF that will probably get me bashed a little bit on here. I listened to both of 2+2's interviews with her (the first back in April and the most recent). Both times I was sorely disappointed in her abilities as an investigative journalist. I would need to go back and listen to both interviews to remember specifically what she said, but I found myself thinking that most of what she said was obvious and she would give her opinion a lot, as if it were fact. I guess I did not value her contribution to this issue as much as most of you do.<br />
<br />
I also found her comments laughable about HL backing out of her "promised interview". She goes on and on as if HL destroyed her career by backing out of this interview. I have no doubt that HL probably agreed to do an interview with DF; however, these things happen. If DF was reputable journalist, she would understand this and not lash out with such venom when HL canceled on her. My opinion is that she came across as a somewhat crazy woman, which I also felt a few times listening to her interviews.<br />
<br />
I am disturbed with the FT issue as much as anyone and believe HL knows more than what he has let on. However, I am not convinced DF was the most qualified person in trying to unravel the truths and lies. I believe she loves the fame that has come from all of this and is trying to milk it, trying to leverage off the emotions of those that have been impacted significantly from FT and its owners/management.

I think a lot of readers suffer from add or adhd...have some patience and use some critical thinking skills.

Geez - give her a chance to do EXACTLY what she said she would do. She is putting it out in pieces and said that it will take time to tie everything together. Quite honestly I enjoy reading a well written summary of HL's interview with her thoughts thrown in. I am very much looking forward to parts 3-7.

And if, as OP stated, that is 'short' I'd love to know what long is.

To address the question of 'why put it out in pieces' - well contrary to what many probably think, putting together blog posts doesn't take 10 minutes - especially because of the fact that she is doing things chronologically in tandem with his PN interview. Each of her posts probably takes a good amount of time so doing it in pieces will allow thoughts to come out in a well-thought-out, complete way.

Plus, based on the size of the first two posts, if she did it in one mega-post people would complain because it's tl;dr.

To make a long story short the owners were skimming more money from the company than their profits were. People were fudging numbers, howard along with others probably knew this was the case but why would you ever look a gift horse in the mouth?

I haven't listened to her previous interviews, but she's only on the second installment. Her piece is obviously designed to catch howard in half truths, lies, etc. with actual documented proof that he was lying. And if she does this by the end of her installments, with actual documented proof, than she did alot more than you are giving her credit for. Don't forget howards still under indictment, and if he was skimming profits knowingly doing those two interviews could very much seal his fate with the doj if it proves out that he hung himself.

A suggestion for DiamondFlush: once you've published all the articles, publish a Summary Table with the following headings:

1. Category
2. What Howard Lederer Said
3. What DF Sources Said
4. HL Deception? <yes/no>

Lederer effectively shut DF out of the discussion by telling her he would do an interview with her. In the 2 weeks since the first interview was released there have been dozens of articles on news sites and blogs and hundreds of opinions expressed on forums.

She's late to the party. It may have been by Lederer's design but you can't un-ring that bell.

I also don't get her rant regarding Ferguson. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence and that section of her post didn't even have the "this will become more clear later". To paraphrase her sentiment It is unclear why [DF] felt the need to make this point.

I also have concerns that she might wind up doing exactly what Lederer wants her to do.

Where does she get all this inside information? Was she associated with FTP? Why does she care so much? Who is she?

DF has always been a news aggregator and editorialist not a news originator. If you look at the epic FTP thread you'll see there was almost never information posted that wasn't available somewhere else first or simultaneously. Many clerk of courts offices will flag case files and call specific journalists whenever something is filed. DF appeared to be receiving that courtesy but there was no inside information posted.

DF also posted that when the FTP deal was concluded she would reveal her claimed source of information and her relationship with that source. I'm waiting.

the truth is that you are/were a naive "idiot" (no offence) who thought that gamblers (no, not liars and thieves) travelling in private jets and sh°t are able to run a company professionally.

http://diamondflushpoker.com/2012/04...ct-vs-fiction/ is an example of a DF article that, at least to the best of my knowledge, reports information not reported anywhere else.

Just out of curiosity, can you link to that post?

I am not surprised when some low-post-count, recent-join-date poster says things like the above. But seeing the following from somebody of obvious intelligence, relevant experience and known (but apparently insufficient) familiarity with DF's reporting is quite saddening.

Just not true. She may be primarily a news aggregator, but she has originated news.

Even if she was only a news aggregator, the amount of aggregation she has done and the selection and analysis she does with it is of far greater value than any other reporter on the issue.

There were a number of "poker news" sites quoted in that "epic FP thread". Nearly all of them were nothing more than agggregators, often reporting as news things first reported on this website. A large proportion of what the other sites published was either inaccurate or very stale. Of the news sites referenced in that thread, Subject: Poker and Diamond Flush Poker were two of the most reliable. The one, two or three that were as reliable had signficantly less volume of information.

Well we've progressed from absolutes to near absolutes. Its a baby step in the right direction.

Two of the reasons that DF may rarely have been the first with breaking news is that she puts a far greater emphasis on accuracy than speed, and unlike pretty well all the "news" writers from the other sites, she gets paid only for things unrelated to the reporting.

Again, this is just wrong. Due to unexpected happenstance, I was able to confirm that DF did have direct contact with at least one highly placed inside source who had accurate knowledge of what was going on. Some of her posts have contained information that could have come from this source. Communication I have had with DF strongly supports her having contact with a number of key players. Some of DF's posts are either outright lies or contained information that must have come from inside sources. Occam says that she wasn't lying.

I haven't always agreed with DF's conclusions, and I was one of the first to raise concerns about her near-exclusive reliance on anonymous sources. Of those concerns, one important one was that not identifying sources reduces the credibility of the piece and its writer. It is a shame to see this coming back to bite her after all she has done for us.

DF may not be perfect. After all, she is only human, and therefore prone to make mistakes, just like me, and evidently, you. Despite her imperfection, she has proven to be the best purveyor of information about the FTP affair. You should be grateful. Everybody who reads this forum should be grateful. I know I am.

I'm looking forward to the remainder of DF's analysis. It will save me a whole bunch of work that I would otherwise have to do to reliably reach the conclusions I'll draw when her series is complete.

Whenever I wonder how such a large community like the poker community can be duped and stolen from with impunity I just have to read a thread like this and realize the next theft is probably already underway. Never seen a bigger collective sucker/mark tag on a group of people before.

DoTheMath -

Valid point. I have read the 2+2 threads for maybe a year or so, but did not create an account or post until recently. I am a very casual player, who did not lose much on Black Friday. Obviously my perspective is very different than that of many who post regularly. My only point was that I have not been impressed too much with DF and her interviews/blog posts. I have no doubt she has worked very hard, but I don't this she is a quality journalist. She is a sufficient reporter, but a high school graduate would be just as sufficient at regurgitating news that was previously reported by other sources. I don't believe she has added a lot of value to the whole FT debacle. Just my opinion.

Reserving judgment until the end of the series, but the first two installments didn't say much. Also way too long given the lack of content.

Wheres the link to this claim?

He said that email was odd around 6 times and I remember thinking it was super weird at the time.

There was a back and forth of 'less than official' response emails to the customers questions and to me it seemed like at some point they took a more official tone in the 'odd' email where they declared his funds as safe. Howard somehow took this to be 'odd'. It's pretty standard though and it's something we see all the time from the sites, a conversation starts and things get a little murky so they put things straight with their official stance.

What he finds so odd about that is hard to see - the way I took it was that he was trying to deflect the situation with some odd behavior of his own. Definitely remember it as one of the weirder moments in the interview.

Well, I don't think she is a "quality journalist" either, according to my own rather high standards. However, I do think she is the best we've got on the story. It would be a mistake, IMO, to conclude that since she fails to attain a particular arbitrary standard she therefore can be dimissed.

A high school graduate may also be able to cultivate the sources she has. But she does have sources, and that is one of the things that contribute to her value. She also actually does the work. Nobody else is doing that. She does more than regurgitate news first reported by others. She reports things from her own sources - news that she personally has uncovered. She also collates and analyzes the information more than any mainstream media organization has done.

I think she adds a lot of value. She gets info no mainstream media has. She provides analysis no other news site provides. She has demonstrated a greater understanding and mastery of the subject matter than any reporter who has had hundreds of other stories to cover in
the past 18 months could possibly attain.

I've paid more attention to this issue than 99% of the posters here. I have read almost all DF's work on FTP, some articles several times. I've criticised, critiqued and challenged DF's work on numerous occasions. Sometimes I am not very impressed. Despite all that, I think it would be a mistake to dismiss her value. She's far from perfect, but she's the best we've got, there is no replacement, and we're better off with her than without her. Imperfect though she is, she's produced more articles of value on FTP than anyone else. For our purposes, that makes her closer to perfect than anyone else, doesn't it?

Just my opinion.

There are a few (very few) who want this series discredited at any cost. A few of them are posting. Sorry but DF has the stick and the chops!

Why do you feel the need to have an opinion, even if it is horribly misinformed? Please save yourself future embarrassment and defer to those who have both greater interest in and knowledge of DF's reporting. Your "opinion" is hopelessly off-base and does not stand even a cursory review of all the many articles DF has written on the FTP debacle. There is literally NO ONE who has come close to approaching her journalistic work on this subject.

"the importance of this will become significant later"..... Over and over. Kind of a joke and poorly written. She dropped a drama bomb and still has yet to back it up with pertinent facts or anything but " anonymous sources". I do not doubt her passion or sincerity.I simply doubt her ability to report a story objectively and credibly with all the secrecy she desperately tries to maintain. Most people in here won't or can't understand that, but it is the truth. She is NOT a trained or educated journalist and it shows in her reporting and writing. The funny thing is, I truly appreciate her efforts and her knowledge of the subject. Just not her opinions.

"Why do you feel the need to have an opinion, even if it is horribly misinformed?"

Are you serious? I want to believe you are intelligent, but comments like that make me think otherwise. Truly a moronic statement on your part.

I played on FT as well and have significant interest in the issue. My opinion is no more or less valid than yours on the matter. I have listened to DF's interviews on 2+2 and read her posts, and my opinion is that she offers more opinion that factual substance. Go back and listen to the interviews and read her posts. Not much of what she shares is original material, but only regurgitation of information previously reported by other sources. She may have a contact that has given her very limited information, but nothing earth shattering.