Why no mention, besides a post on Kyle's blog and an audio clip, of the conversation between Bill Allen & Jim Bowles?
Doesn't this constitute a "smoking gun" of sorts, proving beyond a shadow of doubt that Bowles was aware of what Allen was up to?
Why no followup on this?
Has the ADN contacted Bowles for comment, other than the press release?
The fact that Bill Allen and Jim Bowles discussed the profits tax, and the support of Pete Kott and Ben Stevens for their position, was reported in the paper on the morning after it came out in court. It was in the day's front page story on the trial. In addition, as you know, we posted the full audio itself and have encouraged readers to listen to it. Further, we continue to work on a more substantive story about the nature of the relationship between Allen and the major oil companies. The Bowles conversation suggests something about that relationship but we -- unlike left-wing talk radio and a few others who have contacted the paper -- do not find the content of that conversation definitive. It is a "smoking gun" that Allen and Bowles discussed a strategy for how to try to defeat a tax proposal they opposed. Was Conoco Phillips aware of, encouraging or even directing Allen's illegal activities? We do not know. When we have a story based on information, rather than inference, we will publish it.
By trying to understand and verify what was actually going on -- something that takes time and effort -- rather than dumping out a quick-and-dirty stenographic "story" based on ambiguous conversation, we are engaging in actual reporting, which is what distinguishes our efforts from talk radio and blogs.
Indeed it does, and you are doing an excellent job. Thank you for your time.