I removed the statement that Reliant kept a file on Palast -- the page ref is a graphic in the edition I have (softback UK edition 2003) and on checking the Reliant refs in the index can't find the statement. It may have been published in the US edition but not the UK edition. --Bob Burton 18:53, 26 Jan 2005 (EST)
Removed the endorsements comments as they donlt really ad much and read like puffery. I'm inclined to remove the collection of extracts from various statements by Palast further down the track too as they are out of context and doesn't really fit with what a profile should read like. However, figure I'll leave them for now as its not a priority to rewrite this article further. cheers--Bob Burton 18:05, 27 Jan 2005 (EST)
I took them out. --Maynard 18:44, 27 Jan 2005 (EST)
I also brought these surprising, improbable, and unsubstantiated, claims over from the article until somebody believes them with sufficient strength, cause, or evidence, to return them.
Long Island Lighting
In 1988, Palast directed a US civil racketeering investigation into the nuclear plant builder Long Island Lighting, in which a jury awarded the plaintiffs US$4.8 billion, however, New York's chief federal judge had the verdict thrown out.
Palast has argued that the cause of the Exxon Valdez accident (1989) was an Exxon decision to turn the ship's radar off (in order to save money), as well as to various other breaches of safety regulations.
During a talk hosted by the Friends of Le Monde diplomatique, London, July 2003, Palast referred to Al Jazeera as a "terrorist network". He repeated the statement elsewhere in a talk in the Bay Area. Palast has provided no further explanation for this statement.
The Long Island lighting case is referred to in passing (ie one par) in the intro (page 6 in my edition) to The Best Democracy Money Can Buy but seems the details must have been published/researched much earlier but unsure where. There is also a section in the book on the Valdez investigation (pages 257-269) but on a quick scan there was only a passing ref to the radar claim -- again must have been published in more detail somewhere earlier.PaulR added the AL Jazeera statement so he is best placed to know source/link.--Bob Burton 20:08, 27 Jan 2005 (EST)
I'm confident that verifiable citations to non-internet media are acceptable policy, eh? --Maynard 21:12, 27 Jan 2005 (EST)
bob reply 2
Yes I think so as long as the citations are reasonably detailed so they can be checked if necessary. The problem really is that it is just that much harder to go track down an old article or a book if its a really important point and its not online.(Palast also mentions the radar issue in one sentence on page 7 of my edition too but it would be good to have more detail on the basis for it before adding it back in - and any response from the operators). It may be covered in an article in Palast's online archive but I don't have time to trawl through there right now --Bob Burton 21:31, 27 Jan 2005 (EST)
Al jazeera issue
I was present at the FLMD talk, and was startled by this statement. unfortunately, i didnt have an opp to ask him about it. I heard it again in a rebroadcast of one of his talks given in the Bay are (yourcallradio, but the link is kaput). It should be noted that Palast usually doesnt say much about of any issue dealing with the Israel/middle east, and yet here he states something unflattering about AJ. PaulR