Tweet
The Olint saga: I was not David Smith's boy!
MARK WIGNALL
Thursday, February 19, 2009
MARK WIGNALL
When I began writing newspaper columns in 1993 the first stark revelation that was driven home to me was that no matter what grand ideas I had floating around in my head, those could only sustain a regular column to the extent that I built up a range of contacts in all the various sectors: politics, business, the police, the troubled inner-city communities, civil society and journalists.
Based on sterile, non-invasive observations, I could pen all the esoteric stuff that a keyboard attached to a brain could conjure up, but at some stage I needed closer personal contact with those involved in all the many layers that a society operates at.
It probably took me about five years to do that. When Franklin McKnight was editor of The Herald and I wrote a regular piece for the Sunday edition, a friend and I had a conversation at my favourite watering hole. His opening line caused me to rehash all that I had been doing before: "I read your column. Very nice stuff, good stuff. I read it once, twice, three times. I know that there is good material in it, but after a fourth read I still couldn't figure what you were trying to say."
After that I toned down on the "heavy stuff", which was really aimed at a very narrow slice of readers in a country where a book and a newspaper are not necessarily the best friends of the typical man and woman at street level. The disadvantage that a column has in its information time lag (vis `a vis daily reporting) is also its advantage. It can build on a story, and if the writer is any good, it can hold the readers' attention over a sustained period - not a very easy task when there are other good columnists in a nation of non-readers.
In any one week, I am contacted by at least two people or entities seeking my input in addressing what they believe are important matters. I have to weigh this with what I am seeking, what is current, and ultimately what I believe readers will want to read.
In 2004 and 2005 a few acquaintances and a relative began telling me about Olint. My response: "What is this Olint thing?" At parties I would hear folk among the well-heeled set speaking of Olint and their 10 per cent per month. Some were urging me to invest in it, probably believing that the clothes I wore were indicative of my ability to conjure up the sort of funds which were the constant subject of their cocktail natterings.
st in Olint was piqued. If I thought that Olint was just a blue blood, rich man's club, I probably would not have pursued any interest in it. But the relative of mine who was a club member was just a person working very hard in his professional pursuits and had never spent a minute at the dizzying social heights of Jamaican society. Plus, he told me, some of his friends, no blue-blooders themselves, were investors in Olint and had been doing well.
As I asked around, I began to speak with some of the very well-heeled whom I had previously heard discussing Olint. In time, I was led to three sources, and on questioning them I determined that their personal or professional contacts, or both, with Olint could be used to frame a general picture of what that strange-sounding entity was all about, and as long as I used the information gleaned from each source to cross-tabulate with the other sources, I would be on safe grounds in a society where information can be as easy to come by as finding a tropical oasis in Antarctica.
To inform myself, I sat down with people who were involved at some small level in FX trading. To be fair, for every two people who lauded FX trading, there was one telling me it was unsustainable. What eventually sold me on Olint was its ability to sustain the 2006 raid, sustain a 70 per cent withdrawal of funds and still survive.
A pyramid-like structure could never sustain such an incursion. Indeed, when there were more than jitters between the regulatory arms of the financial sector and Olint, it was I who suggested to my main information source on Olint that those investors who had previously pulled funds should not be allowed in. I suggested that because if I had had funds invested in it, once it was raided, I would never risk it happening again.
The accusations appearing on blogs, which have featured my name among many others, have made it appear that the articles I wrote on Olint were carefully scripted articles, designed purely as an extension of Olint's public relations. It is quite true that one of my main sources was the PR arm of Olint but I need to pose these questions:
How many times have journalists, columnists sat down with various PR bodies to pose questions to them? Numerous times. Some answers can be carried as plain reportage, or in the case of the columnist, he can cross-tabulate with his many other sources to get a general idea of the veracity of the information.
Second, if my general views on the subject, the person or the entity are well known to those bodies, how can it be a secret as to where I may be going with a column next week?
Years ago when it was my belief that the leader of a political party was holding back the very lifeblood of the party because of his refusal to step down, I wrote a series of stinging articles, highlighting what I saw as his faults and constantly calling on him to rescind his thoughts of a last political hurrah. During this period I met with many in the political party to glean real-time specific information to add to that already gained.
That was not enough to some who were opposed to my columns. The word went out that I was being paid to pen those columns. At those times, I would meet with one or two politicians, have discussions with them, then tell them in general terms what it is I would be writing. Although it has never found favour with me, on the odd occasion I would send off a draft of my column to maybe the politician who gave me the best information, not for vetting (at times specifics were altered to account for information which was wrongly assimilated), but just for a read.
It seems illogical to me that I could sit down with those giving me main information on a particular subject, and yet the sources are unaware of what I will be doing with the information, especially after I have expressed my views very openly, very animatedly to them.
At the time I was writing articles about Olint, I had reservations about another entity and I expressed it to those close to Olint. That also was no secret.
The blogs giving expression to those who were investors in Olint may be flouting laws of which the bloggers are unaware. As a newspaper columnist, I am the last to criticise the opening of the information highway, especially where it is thought that the small man is always shafted in that pursuit. But there are serious allegations on those blogs, some which are plainly untrue.
[email protected]
MARK WIGNALL
Thursday, February 19, 2009
MARK WIGNALL
When I began writing newspaper columns in 1993 the first stark revelation that was driven home to me was that no matter what grand ideas I had floating around in my head, those could only sustain a regular column to the extent that I built up a range of contacts in all the various sectors: politics, business, the police, the troubled inner-city communities, civil society and journalists.
Based on sterile, non-invasive observations, I could pen all the esoteric stuff that a keyboard attached to a brain could conjure up, but at some stage I needed closer personal contact with those involved in all the many layers that a society operates at.
It probably took me about five years to do that. When Franklin McKnight was editor of The Herald and I wrote a regular piece for the Sunday edition, a friend and I had a conversation at my favourite watering hole. His opening line caused me to rehash all that I had been doing before: "I read your column. Very nice stuff, good stuff. I read it once, twice, three times. I know that there is good material in it, but after a fourth read I still couldn't figure what you were trying to say."
After that I toned down on the "heavy stuff", which was really aimed at a very narrow slice of readers in a country where a book and a newspaper are not necessarily the best friends of the typical man and woman at street level. The disadvantage that a column has in its information time lag (vis `a vis daily reporting) is also its advantage. It can build on a story, and if the writer is any good, it can hold the readers' attention over a sustained period - not a very easy task when there are other good columnists in a nation of non-readers.
In any one week, I am contacted by at least two people or entities seeking my input in addressing what they believe are important matters. I have to weigh this with what I am seeking, what is current, and ultimately what I believe readers will want to read.
In 2004 and 2005 a few acquaintances and a relative began telling me about Olint. My response: "What is this Olint thing?" At parties I would hear folk among the well-heeled set speaking of Olint and their 10 per cent per month. Some were urging me to invest in it, probably believing that the clothes I wore were indicative of my ability to conjure up the sort of funds which were the constant subject of their cocktail natterings.
st in Olint was piqued. If I thought that Olint was just a blue blood, rich man's club, I probably would not have pursued any interest in it. But the relative of mine who was a club member was just a person working very hard in his professional pursuits and had never spent a minute at the dizzying social heights of Jamaican society. Plus, he told me, some of his friends, no blue-blooders themselves, were investors in Olint and had been doing well.
As I asked around, I began to speak with some of the very well-heeled whom I had previously heard discussing Olint. In time, I was led to three sources, and on questioning them I determined that their personal or professional contacts, or both, with Olint could be used to frame a general picture of what that strange-sounding entity was all about, and as long as I used the information gleaned from each source to cross-tabulate with the other sources, I would be on safe grounds in a society where information can be as easy to come by as finding a tropical oasis in Antarctica.
To inform myself, I sat down with people who were involved at some small level in FX trading. To be fair, for every two people who lauded FX trading, there was one telling me it was unsustainable. What eventually sold me on Olint was its ability to sustain the 2006 raid, sustain a 70 per cent withdrawal of funds and still survive.
A pyramid-like structure could never sustain such an incursion. Indeed, when there were more than jitters between the regulatory arms of the financial sector and Olint, it was I who suggested to my main information source on Olint that those investors who had previously pulled funds should not be allowed in. I suggested that because if I had had funds invested in it, once it was raided, I would never risk it happening again.
The accusations appearing on blogs, which have featured my name among many others, have made it appear that the articles I wrote on Olint were carefully scripted articles, designed purely as an extension of Olint's public relations. It is quite true that one of my main sources was the PR arm of Olint but I need to pose these questions:
How many times have journalists, columnists sat down with various PR bodies to pose questions to them? Numerous times. Some answers can be carried as plain reportage, or in the case of the columnist, he can cross-tabulate with his many other sources to get a general idea of the veracity of the information.
Second, if my general views on the subject, the person or the entity are well known to those bodies, how can it be a secret as to where I may be going with a column next week?
Years ago when it was my belief that the leader of a political party was holding back the very lifeblood of the party because of his refusal to step down, I wrote a series of stinging articles, highlighting what I saw as his faults and constantly calling on him to rescind his thoughts of a last political hurrah. During this period I met with many in the political party to glean real-time specific information to add to that already gained.
That was not enough to some who were opposed to my columns. The word went out that I was being paid to pen those columns. At those times, I would meet with one or two politicians, have discussions with them, then tell them in general terms what it is I would be writing. Although it has never found favour with me, on the odd occasion I would send off a draft of my column to maybe the politician who gave me the best information, not for vetting (at times specifics were altered to account for information which was wrongly assimilated), but just for a read.
It seems illogical to me that I could sit down with those giving me main information on a particular subject, and yet the sources are unaware of what I will be doing with the information, especially after I have expressed my views very openly, very animatedly to them.
At the time I was writing articles about Olint, I had reservations about another entity and I expressed it to those close to Olint. That also was no secret.
The blogs giving expression to those who were investors in Olint may be flouting laws of which the bloggers are unaware. As a newspaper columnist, I am the last to criticise the opening of the information highway, especially where it is thought that the small man is always shafted in that pursuit. But there are serious allegations on those blogs, some which are plainly untrue.
[email protected]
Comment