New YouTube video on Forbes and PWCC

[Peter_Spaeth]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EczdjPXHVI

[ullmandds]

good video.

[oldjudge]

Makes you think, doesn’t it?

[swarmee]

Yeah, he kind of quit posting once I questioned his motives after the revelations were starting to come out. He still posts on the PSA board.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

Makes you think, doesn’t it?

The fact that Forbes contributors have already been caught selling coverage and links in their articles makes me think they might have missed one!

[griffon512]

I know David pretty well, regularly seeing him at White Plains shows. He's a personable guy that is always trying to learn more about the hobby. Over time, he has become much more knowledgeable and started a collection, sometimes buying from the local dealers. As you can imagine, being a Forbes writing contributor on a hobby does not generate a living wage but allows him to earn some money in a field -- journalism -- he has spent his entire career in. I'm grateful that David has drawn some incremental attention to the hobby. It benefits most of us. As to whether or not he is supplementing his non-livable wage income with PWCC payments, as this video insinuates, there is zero evidence of that. Even in the case that it is true, I personally could give a shiit. It's trivial in the scheme of things. It's David's employers decision to judge the content of his articles and their reception by his audience. Targeting him as a potential bad guy is off base and feels like a misguided extension of a legitimate huge problem that needs to be addressed in the hobby.

Let's focus on the big institutions and the really bad actors, not unfounded insinuations about decent individuals challenged to get by in life that are well liked and respected by the hobbyists who know them. I hope this thread dies soon before it goes off the rails.

[swarmee]

Since you asked, it does sound like there is an accusation of payola or an inappropriate business relationship with PWCC. It only makes sense that he goes radio silent on this huge story relating to vintage and modern baseball cards once it's been pointed out that his golden goose Brent is a fraudster.
Other valid sports card news outlets are reporting that there is a story, rather than burying it or ignoring it. For HolyGrail to continue to only submit stories to Forbes with positive news on the market calls into question his authenticity as a journalist.

Magazines that provide investment advice that is paid advertising must be reported to be advertising, correct? I know it is when I look through the Delta Sky magazines in the airports. If the investment advice is tainted, and being used only to prop up or increase the value of the market, the journalist is part of the shilling scheme. David probably is a good guy; but if he's on the take, he should be forthcoming that he's on the take.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by griffon512

Targeting him as a potential bad guy is off base and feels like a misguided extension of a legitimate huge problem that needs to be addressed in the hobby.

Except that the entire publishing world feels very differently from you. From an article on payola:

"Jason Feifer, editor in chief of Entrepreneur, said in an email, 'I often tell entrepreneurs that if they want to get the ear of an editor, there’s no better way than to do this: Find someone who’s selling coverage on a reputable site, and rat them out. I encourage people to do this right now—my inbox is always open, as our my colleagues'. We have a zero-tolerance policy for this kind of thing, our writer’s guidelines strictly prohibit it, and we take swift action. In the past, when alerted to people selling access on our site, I’ve even gone the extra step of alerting editors at other publications where that person writes, so that these bad actors have nowhere else to go. We value our readers’ trust above all, and will always work to ensure that they’re getting unbiased information from people who have their best interests in mind.'”

Plus it leads to the exact scenario we find ourselves in. Positive coverage when things are going well and then protectionism or silence (and let's not forget his only response here on Net54 was to defend PWCC). Now any reader of Forbes who hears about this might think "It can't be that big of a deal, he didn't cover it." There are reasons it is unethical AND illegal. Is it as big of a problem as the bad actors? Probably not, but it makes it much easier for them to exist. You also have a couple of choices of what to believe in this case. He didn't know what PWCC was doing behind the scenes when he hypothetically accepted the payola and now he's between a rock and a hard place, or he did know and now he's praying it all just goes away.

Now there's only conjecture and a suspicious pattern of events, circumstantial evidence at best, so I'm not saying he's guilty of anything. But I am entitled to wonder, if you have nothing to hide, why, as a journalist, do you go radio silent on one of the biggest stories in the hobby? Based on his quote do you think the editor of Entrepreneur would like to know about the situation?

[Peter_Spaeth]

If nothing else, David has a voice and an audience and wouldn't it be the right thing to use it to inform people who might not otherwise know what's going on, instead of keeping up with the string of hobby puff pieces?

[Johnny630]

It was all part of their marketing campaign targeting big money investors, What Better Place to Market the high end Investor who loves sports cards with the cliche that it’s a great place to get a nice ROI in the vintage high grade Sports card market. A magical mystical allusion. lol
PWCC I’m surprised didn’t try the investors business daily weekly paper or the WSJ.

“A fool and his money are soon parted”

[Fuddjcal]

Originally Posted by griffon512

I know David pretty well, regularly seeing him at White Plains shows. He's a personable guy that is always trying to learn more about the hobby. Over time, he has become much more knowledgeable and started a collection, sometimes buying from the local dealers. As you can imagine, being a Forbes writing contributor on a hobby does not generate a living wage but allows him to earn some money in a field -- journalism -- he has spent his entire career in. I'm grateful that David has drawn some incremental attention to the hobby. It benefits most of us. As to whether or not he is supplementing his non-livable wage income with PWCC payments, as this video insinuates, there is zero evidence of that -- 45% of his articles being related to PWCC says very little. Even in the case that it is true, I personally could give a shiit. It's trivial in the scheme of things. It's David's employers decision to judge the content of his articles and their reception by his audience. Targeting him as a potential bad guy is off base and feels like a misguided extension of a legitimate huge problem that needs to be addressed in the hobby.

Let's focus on the big institutions and the really bad actors, not unfounded insinuations about decent individuals challenged to get by in life that are well liked and respected by the hobbyists who know them. I hope this thread dies soon before it goes off the rails.

He needs to learn that Brent mastro is crooked. It's not too difficult. He's a shill just like Brent Mastro....Mr Shill.

[griffon512]

Originally Posted by Fuddjcal

He needs to learn that Brent mastro is crooked. It's not too difficult. He's a shill just like Brent Mastro....Mr Shill.

yeah, they're the same, you're right...makes total sense.

didn't take nostradamus to predict this thread would go off the rails.

it would be good if david would call out pwcc. point taken. next.