If that's the case I think that removes the biggest issue of her being anonymous.

It's my understanding that DF is likely to:

1 - Have access to much more information than previous interviewers
2 - Push Howard harder

I could be way off since I haven't followed this mess much lately, but from what I've read of DF and her rep in general, this seems to be the case. If so there's actual value in the interview, since DF can ask harder-hitting questions and is much less likely to be thrown off by lies (and more likely to bring attention to the lies during the interview). At the very least we could get a clearer understanding of what lies or truth Howard has been telling in the previous interviews.

I mean I guess it doesn't really matter because DF is releasing an article soon anyway. As I said, just my relatively uninformed opinion.

I'd bet that if an anonymous journalist was citing anonymous sources in support of Howard Lederer everyone would be wanting to know exactly who that journalist was. I'm sorry but I just think that anonymous sources being reported by an anonymous journalist is a tad 1984'ish.

Measure your words - they'll have more effect. Think like a sniper - engage target, relax, decide whether to take the shot.

As it is, you come over as hysterical, and reduce the impact of everyone at 2+2. Someone swearing like you do in the post above simply allows the accused to say "it was all personal abuse, I simply couldn't talk to them".

This isn't the usual NVG rubbish. There is genuine doubt, and HL arguably has a case for his defence. Hysterical, over-the-top ranting lets him off the hook.

I don t see how she can analysis anything when she never got the interview.
She should just drop the whole idea, we don t need to hear anything else from HL, we need to hear from other members of FTP

Both at DF and Subject:Poker, the underlying theme has been meticulous research. DF has had a lot of time to prepare for an interview with HL, and he has broken his word to her AFAICT.

So that research is going to come out this week. Grab the popcorn.

Focusing on DF real identity here is ridiculous.

Regarding getting facts..no we are getting a lot of "I don't knows" to a lot of important questions and the interviewees in both interviews lacked the knowledge to back up follow up questions that would have brought us thr real "facts". Instead we seen a lot of softball questions and chummery going on. Yes I get they didnt want to upset Howard and be respectful...but you lose out on so much when you are not more direct. I think This is what DF wouldve brought to the table.

yep

The problem with this position is that you and Mike didn't have any problems with her coming on the 2+2 Pokercast while remaining anonymous to talk about the FTP situation. If it was, both of you could have vetoed her appearance. Then your comment would carry some weight since you could say, "I don't give much credibility to any anonymous person and until DF outs herself, I won't give her much credibility either.

If you thought it was in her complete interest to indentify herself or that HL would be more likely to speak to her if she did, you could PM her at any time. Instead, it ends up appearing that you want to discredit her so that your interview will stand as the last word on the matter.

+1

HL has stolen hundreds of millions and yet this thread has turned into a "should DF have to out herself"....**** that, she's been reliable on almost everything she's posted. And has shown more integrity then 99% of the mainstream media.

well said

There is no doubt she will be as professional as always with these articles. As I'm sure you realize, we have no reason to assume otherwise.

I think DF has earned the right to do whatever she pleases with regards to her identity. The proof of her legitimacy is in the pudding and she's provided infinitely better information than anyone else in the industry since BF.

Everyone who has enjoyed/benefited from her articles should donate on her website imo.

I have no doubt that DF would have done a professional job of the interview and would have covered a number of topics that we didn't. Her knowledge of the subject matter blows pretty much everyone else out of the water. I wish the interview would have happened as much as anyone.

But I guess the above post was the point that I was poorly trying to get at. I just think that if you are going to interviewing people on the record and making commentary about them, they should have the right to be able to walk up to you and look you in eye. People knowing who you are makes you accountable for what you say. When Matt Parvis, Lance Bradley, Marco Valerio or Adam Schwartz interview someone or make a commentary about them, those people are aware that their subjects and their audience can walk up to them at any time and talk to them and that the poker community knows that you are willing to stand behind your words publicly.

The difference now is that DF isn't just providing leaked info, she is actually performing 'on the record' interviews of major players involved. IMO she made the transition from 'anonymous blogger insider' to 'public media member' when she published the Andy Bloch interview. Just the way I see it, but I went to journalism school 20 years ago. Things are apparently different now as it seems I'm in the minority.

It's not like I'm not personally going to read everything she writes with trust and interest like everyone else. It was just a technicality really and I regret the derail.

I believe she will use facts to crush him. I think he knew this and backed out. So if she writes an article that absolutely destroys him he can always come on 2+2 or any other form of message board and defend himself.

I think the purpose of this interview was to ask him about some things that weren't asked and see how he answers those questions.

Noone has dug harder for FTP info than DF and I personally believe Lederer knows this and knew he would be stepping into an electric chair if he took this interview.

This. There is a legitimate chance she is going to be releasing major NEW details to this whole story either by herself or through and interview. This is a silly time to derail such a major moment to discuss technicalities in journalistic ethics. I really wish mods would stop this discussion in this thread and move it to its own thread devoted to standards in journalism. This is totally insignificant to the potentially significant developments we are hoping for.

she said she was releasing it sometime in the afternoon......its time!>

I don't see why HL would give another interview. he has pretty much told the story in two extremely long interviews. I believe that Bitar is the main villain in this whole thing. Howard may have made some poor business decisions but I dont think he intentionally stole any money.

If you, and others, don't see any problem with someone giving their word to do something then backing out, you might be part of the problem.

Mike Johnson

Did you make money off of 2+2 podcast #239?

Did you foot the bill for any of H L expenses out of your own pocket?

Do you ask for donations and accept loans to keep the 2+2 podcast going?

D F has earned her anonymity.

You have not.

He also didn't return any money from the millions he made in distributions, which were done at the expense of player deposits.

Maybe not but he acknowledges that he received stolen money and chose to keep it and spend it on himself in such an extravagent way that it would make Lenny Dykstra at his financial peak jealous.

I'm in complete agreement with Mike Johnson. I also graduated from Journalism school about 20 years ago and understand exactly where he is coming from. There are very good reasons why standards of journalism exist. No one earns anonymity.

I can't be the only person to think that DiamondFlush and NoahSd are the same person right? Have u heard them on the pokercast? Very similar voices.

In re: anonymity, if Diamond Flush ever did anything to tarnish her credibility, then I would agree there would be strong reason to reveal her name. Until then, it's neither here nor there.

As for this interview, I was truly looking forward to it, if for no other reason than the previous two had warmed us up for it. It's almost like a comedy show: Parvis was the warm-up act who struggled at times but managed to deliver a few moments, Adam and MJ were the featured performer in the middle, providing a strong overall set. But DF's interview was the headliner.

Nonetheless, I remain hopeful that...

a) Lederer will change his mind at a later point. He cites fatigue as his reason for backing out, but if that's true, his reason will subside in time. Depending on what DF puts out on her site, he might even feel compelled to do a Q&A to address (cough, spin) any points to which he takes issue.

b) DF will instead interview one of the other Full Tilt owners, perhaps the likes of Juanda or Ferguson, to get their viewpoints in the wake of Lederer's interviews. Hell, she did an excellent job with Bloch before the PokerNews series.

As much as I looked forward to this interview, I'd still prefer an interview with one of the other Full Tilt principals over a third interview with Howard. It's close, but I'd take it and I'm confident it could still happen.

Oh and DF, I'm happy to donate. I'll do that now.

Edit: Poker Prosecution LLC. Hehe.

Can we start hitting f5 now?