cc: NAAS Subscribers and Users
Bcc: Domestic and International Affiliates
Subject: -- Do Media awards really mean anything??
NEWS, Commentary & Analysis
This brief Media Report contains a subject matter of general and public interest,
and should be read only by persons interested in the subject and contents therein. Continued from Page 1.
NASFAA, NACAC, Jane Bryant Quinn, and Federal Informant #gov45678ci9
Prior to discussing the ethics and integrity of Jane Bryant Quinn, and the media awards associated with this person, one must first research a little history about Monster, Inc., National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators (a/k/a/ NASFAA), and certain members of an alphabet-related group called the National Association for College Admission Counseling (a/k/a/ NACAC), and a seemingly corrupt federal informant whose for-profit business entered into an exclusive arrangement with the non-profit, tax-exempt NASFAA.
In or about February of 2007, the Attorney General of New York finally noticed something that this Publisher had been discussing for years. There was something very fishy about certain non-profit organizations, and their interactions with a known federal informant. In newspaper article, after newspaper article, the informant was quoted alongside either NASFAA, NACAC, or their members. The article boasted of the financial-aid services and advice featured in the website run by the informant. Direct hyperlinks were provided to prominent companies that specialized in student loans. The informant even helped design and edit the website of NASFAA.
Eventually, the nefarious relationship between various members of National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators and certain members and officials of NACAC was further exposed.
Both of these groups are registered non-profit organizations, yet are highly dependent upon the annual membership fees from colleges, universities, admissions' officers, financial-aid officers, for day-to-day operating revenue. Also, these groups receive advertising revenue from deep-pocketed student-loan companies. It is the members of these groups that are the focus of pending student-loan fraud investigations.
When facts were published by this Publisher and other Internet-based groups abouts suspicions regarding the informant, and his businesss arrangements with NASFAA, NASFAA then prematurely ended its sponsorship arrangement, and the company was allegedly sold first to FastWeb, LLC. No notable changes occured on the website, however. The cosmetic sale was rumored to be an attempt by the informant to divest himself og his most profitable assets should further scrutiny develop. Eventually, the same federal informant went on to work with Monster, Inc., a company that was soon investigated for potential securities' violations.
Officials of NASFAA and NACAC were instrumental in the passage of the discredited College Scholarship Fraud Prevention Act. Meanwhile, corrupt members of the main-stream media refused to investigate or critic the absurd relationships in place between NASFAA, NACAC, and the federal informant whom their members would rely upon as a "Financial-Aid Expert."
Despite its association with unsavory proponents, the Act became federal legislation after much fanfare in 2000, and allegedly perjured statements by the federal informant who was invited to speak before the U.S. Senate. Corrupt representatives of the media, and prominent members of NASFFA, certainly played a significant part in not only this crooked informant appearing before the U.S. Senate, but why so many elected officials bought the meritiless stories of rampant "scholarship scams" fabricated by the businessman informant who sought to protect his own interests in related fields.
In financial-aid books, press releases, news paper reports, flyers, radio, etc. The central message was:"Processing and application fees were a sure sign of scholarship fraud." This was the message trumpted by the federal informant, and wholeheartedly adopted by members of NASFAA, NASCAC, who in turn encouraged their respective members to pass the information along to students and parents. Although there was no law against assessing fees for services rendered, and numerous organizations with stellar histories featured the practice, the main-steam media trumpeted the Socialist ideology of the federal informant.
To generate the appearance of respectability, numerous main stream newspapers who had ties to NACAC/NASFAA, and the U.S. Education often quoted the snake-tongued informant in their newspapers and columns.
Parrot or Legitimate reporter, Jane Bryant Quinn?
Do media awards mean anything? Are media awards fraudulent paper-based products meant to sell the consumer the concept of 'respect'? Consider the awards afforded to Jane Bryant Quinn. Newsweek reports that Jane Bryant Quinn is a 1997 winner of the prestigious Gerald Loeb Lifetime Achievement Award as well as the 1995 Award for Distinguished Business and Financial Journalism. The Newsweek contributing editor has been praised for her "overall contribution to consumer journalism." And, for what the magazine, claims "for consistent presentation of unique information in a thoughtful, concise manner."
Quinn was named one of the " 100 Most Influential Business Journalists" of 1997 by The Journalist and Financial Reporter newsletter which noted "In a increasingly competitive field, she continues to lead the pack." The World Almanac has named her one of the 25 most influential women in America.
Quinn has received an Emmy Award and a Janus Award for her business reporting on television. She is a two-time winner of the John Hancock Award for Excellence in Business and Financial Journalism (1992, 1995) and a three-time winner of the National Press Club's Consumer Journalism Award (1984, 1982 and 1981). She has numerous other relatively meaningless awards to her credit
that do not relfect her true character, and integrity.
All of the media awards afforded to Jane Bryant Quinn, and other media figures mean very little in practice. Many of the statments of the award presenters to Quinn are just plain B.S. In reality, Jane Bryant Quinn is an unattractive female reporter that kisses up when she needs to. Aside from her apparent gig with Newsweek, she is apparently writing columns for Bloomberg News since it is clear she would never be hired by Hugh Hefner to grace the cover of any PlayBoy magazine.
Online photographs of this woman suggests at least one word: "U-G-L-Y."
She is not the type of woman that most men consider a potential date, and certainly most persons eager for both ACCURATE AND COMPLETE reporting should re-consider using Quinn as a potential source.
Despite these backdrop of facts, Ugly Jane of Bloomberg or Bloopers News pens a news story entitled "Student loans get tighter in crunch." Despite her many awards, and posted information by the New York Attorney General about the players in the student-loan scandal, and criminal magistrate files, and information from the U.S. Dept. of Justice, who does this woman reporter lean on for advice about student loans?? The same federal informant snitch, who in the 1990s, deliberately fabricated and distributed false information not only about competitors to his business, deliberately steered students and parents to high-interest student loans, deliberately steered students and parents to so-called preferred lender companies associated with NASFAA, and NACAC, failed to disclose his true relationship with NASFAA, failed to disclose all monies he received, and was instrumental with corrupt members of the media for creating a smoke & mirrors campaign (like the media campaign that led to the Iraq War) that diverted attention away from the fact that many members of NASFAA and NACAC were fraudulently engaged in student-loan deceit, a market worth over 25 Billion $U.S. dollars. Conclusion
Do media awards mean anything? Many of the same corrupt news reporters that wrote
favorable articles in support of the Iraq War, and many of the same reporters who helped to create the student-loan scandal, also won prestigious awards for work done in the past.
Some of the brightest talent on Wall-street helped pitch the idea of Adjustable Rate Mortgages for consumers with shaky credit. These debt obligations were re-packaged as Collateralized Debt Obligations and sold to institutional investors. These stupid investors in turn used the CDO's as equity for further financing from banks. Like fools, many banks accepted these CDO's from
the likes of Countrywide and other since failed mortgage lenders.
Eventually, the banks who relied upon the paper-based CDO's, the investors who bought the instruments, the consumers who accepted the fraudulent mortages, the mortgage brokers who put together the packages, and the original lenders were in the same drowning ship. Youv'e read the stories. Bear Stearns. Countrywide. Foreclosures. Developers.
All of these utter and reprehensible fools were impressed with the Harvard, CMU, and UCLA grads who created these fraudulent financial instruments. Many of these same colleges and universities are members of NASFAA and have ties to NACAC.
Home values have since plummeted, and many Americans have lost their homes to foreclosures.
So, do not be impressed with the self-congratulatory awards the media heaps upon itself, and their respective reporters. In the end, a liar and con artist should be recognized by their work and not their false self-appraisals.
Forbes editor James Michael noted that Quinn "manages to be reader-friendly and sophisticated on everything from buying homes and insurance and securities to dealing with problems of divorce, retirement and education." If Quinn is so smart about these issues then why didn't she foresee the looming credit crises for both students and home-owners? Her articles are written too late, and are largely irrelevant by the time they are posted.
. Also, it should be dislcosed that this Publisher has linked other reporters connected to Forbes that are also connected to same federal informant quoted by Quinn.
Unless, perhaps, awarded by the general residents of the community, and nation as a whole, media awards mean nothing. Media awards do not represent or infer honesty, integrity, or character. Most media awards are nothing but paper-based machinations of deceit designed to create the false impression of respect. False praisees from respective members of the media towards each other are B.S.
Let the facts, not the awards, be the judge of whether or not to trust a reporter. In the end, a legitimate journalist DOES NOT accept any awards inorder to ensure his/her neutrality. After all, how many jouranlists have investigated the persons/firms they have received awards or praise from?? Zero. Case closed!
Well that's my opinion. What's yours?