Different view's on journalism

[diagem]

Since many of us follow the KP/Zimbabwe news, two major industry journalists share different view's on the subject.

Interesting read and worth following.
http://www.diamonds.net/News/NewsItem.aspx?ArticleID=32132

By Martin Rapaport Posted: 08/15/10 09:20

On August 11th 2010, the Kimberley Process (KP) certified approximately 900,000 carats of rough diamonds from Marange, Zimbabwe. While the trading of these diamonds may be legal in certain jurisdictions, it is illegal for U.S., European Union (E.U.) or U.K. citizens or entities to knowingly trade these diamonds due to the fact that the companies owning or selling the diamonds are sanctioned by these governments.

Furthermore, it should be clear that the KP does not have a mandate to deny its certification for diamonds involved in human rights violations and therefore, there is no assurance that diamonds with KP certification are free of human rights violations.

Based on the above legal and moral considerations RapNet will continue to forbid the trading of any diamonds sourced from Marange, Zimbabwe on our network. RapNet members that knowingly offer Marange diamonds for sale on RapNet will be expelled from RapNet and their names will be publicly communicated. We strongly urge members to contact their suppliers and obtain written assurances that they are not being supplied Marange diamonds. U.S., U.K. and E.U. members may have a legal obligation to do so and should consult their legal advisors.

RapNet members that wish to cancel their subscription due to this trade restriction are invited to do so within thirty days and will receive a refund for the unused portion of their RapNet subscription.

RapNet and the Rapaport Group are fully committed to maintaining honest, ethical standards and will not tolerate the use of our trading networks for the distribution of diamonds involved in human rights violations. If any member has information about such abuses, they are encouraged to contact RapNet’s legal counsel via email [email protected].

On behalf of RapNet and all of us at the Rapaport Group, I thank you for your membership and continued support of our activities and ethical standards.

Yours truly,

Martin Rapaport

For your information, The Rapaport Group has also published the following Trade Alert to the general diamond trade.

Trade Alert: Marange Diamonds — August 12, 2010

“The Kimberley Process (KP) has just certified approximately 900,000 carats of rough diamonds from Marange, Zimbabwe. While the trading of Marange diamonds may be legal in certain jurisdictions, companies owning or selling the diamonds are sanctioned by the U.S., E.U., and U.K. governments and their trading may be illegal by citizens of these countries.

Furthermore, the KP does not have a mandate to deny its certification for diamonds involved in human rights violations and there is no guarantee that diamonds with KP certification are free of human rights violations.

Rapaport strongly advises all diamond buyers not to trade in KP-certified Marange diamonds and to request written assurance from their suppliers that their diamonds have not been sourced from Marange.

RapNet, the Rapaport Diamond Trading Network, will not allow the trading of any diamonds sourced from Marange, Zimbabwe. Members found to have knowingly offered Marange diamonds for sale on RapNet will be expelled and their names will be publicly communicated.”

For more information on Marange Diamonds, visit www.diamonds.net/zimbabwe.

And the second:

http://www.idexonline.com/portal_FullNews.asp?SID=&id=34374


"Even-Zohar's View: Sabotaging Confidence

(August 18, '10, 2:56 Chaim Even-Zohar)


Even Zohar: "There are no human rights violations or abuses involved with these KP-compliant mines."

The most disgraceful form of journalism is the kind practiced by those who have made up their minds and will never allow either facts or the truth to influence their writing. When such journalism is tied to specific elaborate commercial interests to be served “uber alles”, it makes the expressed views only more distasteful. Most decent people will not waste time with either reading or commenting. It is not worth it.

The Kimberley Process Monitor for Zimbabwe certified last week a limited export from the Mbada and Canadile mines, which by any standard are world-class mining operations well above diamond mining average standards.

These two mines employ between them some 1,000 workers drawn from local Chiadzwa tribes and villages, enabling those people to earn a decent living – quite spectacular in a country where formal unemployment is well over 90 percent. As each worker supports some 20-30 dependants, it should be a source of satisfaction to caring people that diamonds can bring so much good to an otherwise quite despondent country.

There are no human rights violations or abuses involved with these KP-compliant mines. The suggestion that the KP-certified Marange diamonds are involved in human rights violations and the suggestion that there is no guarantee that these KP certifications are free of human rights violations is a perversion of truth – and probably actionable.

Some of the buyers of these goods are among the world’s largest and most prestigious diamond concerns, including DTC Sightholders, committed to elaborate corporate best practices and corporate social responsibility policies. To impinge on the decency of these companies is nothing short of contemptuous.

The KP is far from perfect, and the need for system reforms is self-evident. Indeed, reforms are on the agenda and being actively pursued.

However, an attempt to delegitimize the KP Certification System and suggestions that it represents certification of human rights violations impacts the standing and trust in any and all of the 50,000 export certificates that are issued per year. This may deeply hurt confidence throughout the diamond business – from rough trader to consumer – and may cause irreparable damage.

That is an objective that is easy to achieve by misguided writers when facts and truth are so dispensable and useless."

 

[septsparkle]

Very interesting read. I can understand both perspectives...

 

[AnneinGA]

I think the hardest thing about this whole issue is that it is hard to really know how each stone and each mine affects the humanity around it, either good or bad, which is why only diamonds from conflict free areas and mines are allowed into the UK, US, and EU. I mean, how do we really know when we look at a finished stone in a store or online where it actually originated from?

My one issue with the IDEX response is that it would be like saying that buying Opium is ok because the farmers in the countries that grow it are making money to support their families. While that is probably true, the people that are really making the big money are the ones who are selling the drugs through their channels. In this way, conflict diamonds are no different than any drug that is sold in areas that are impoverished and provide workers one of the few ways to support their families.

I like knowing that the consumer channels I go through don't support the conflict, and i rely on the fact that there are measures in place to prevent blood diamonds from ending up on my finger. I am sure the system is not perfect, but it is one I am comfortable with. I do wish that we could know which mine the stones came from; it would be worth a bit of a premium to me to know and an interesting piece of history.

I have also been following the Naomi Campbell story regarding Liberia's former President Charles Taylor. I think she knew what she got, and she was glad to get it, regardless of the clear origin of those stones.

 

[Regular Guy]

Diagem,

I'm delighted by your post, as one I could have an opportunity to reply to.

I would like to share with you a note I sent only yesterday to a friend closely associated with the Kimberey Process workings. But, first, I'll ask a question, and make an observation.

The question...what is a journalist? I'm supposing you know what Even-Zohar has said, because he has thought to have his statement and views published. Is he no less acting as a journalist?

Your point may be, as I think it may have been before, is that a journalist has a responsibility to avoid spin. In this case, who should we understand is being most descriptive. And what are the salient points? I will say I am a bit confused by Mr. Rapaport's first paragraph, but the rest follows clearly to me, and in defiance of Even Zohar's comment. My reading is that Rappaport's analysis is more descriptive of the stated intent of Kimberley, and that has been reviewed affirmatively on this board before. Otherwise...I would like to read somewhere a newly revised statement of what it is that Kimberley is representing it is trying to do.

Anne's first point above about Opium is well enough said. Unfortunately, until Kimberley re-states this intention, I'm not in agreement with her, where she says:

I am sure the system is not perfect, but it is one I am comfortable with.

Generally, I'd say Rappaport is wearing two hats...a journalist, yes, and also, a very powerful business person. If I try to analyze the latter position, by most standards, I am guessing he is shooting himself in the foot by way of increasing his profit stream by assuming the position he has taken. I may be wrong of course, realize he's also trying to build a side thing involving ethical diamonds, but also understand that his net there has been absolutely a total loss, and based on people's actual interest in this venue, I understand he will have to be very very patient to see this profit stream become positive. So, that he is taking this business stand so as to enrich himself...I would need to see evidence of this. To the contrary, I believe it is a stand on principle, and...well...you can read below what I think of it. Also, you can read below what the Christian Science Monitor observes about all of this.

So, otherwise, please see below the note I sent yesterday to my friend...

-------------

I wonder if you mind my asking...

First my google alerts (and my web subscription to anybody who wants it) from Rappaport let me know of his own banning of Zimbabwe's diamonds, and then today, my alerts are telling me that he has single handedly effected/constrained these sales.

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Africa/A ... s-diamonds

I realize the implications behind all of this are complex, and I will also share with you my knee jerk reaction of thinking of him as a hero.

It may be that pragmatists will call this action on Rappaport's part foolhardy, while principled, and effectively causing too great economic hardship on a people.

But, also, for those who manage Kimberley...I guess I am thinking that, after having done his hunger strike, he's now further said, OK, if you can't get it right, I'll do it myself, take away your jobs, and do this myself.

Am I right, is he right, and where are the people who manage Kimberley today? How big a deal is this?

L'Shalom,

--------------------

Regards,

Ira Z.

 

[AnneinGA]

Regular Guy,
Your post is most interesting. I belive that you are saying that since Rappaport has a vested interest in not bringing these diamonds in, he can't possibly be labeled a "journalist". I agree - journalists should report facts without bias from a neutral position. It is clear that neither Rappaport or IDEX Is neutral. But then, neither is Zimbabwe. All parties in the articles listed above have a vested interest one way or the other whether or not the diamonds are distributed in the UK,EU, and US.

My point about the system not being perfect was not in relation to this specific set of stones, but more that the system (hopefully) does not allow the distribution of conflict diamonds. Whether or note these Zimbabwe stones ARE these types of stones is far beyond my pay grade, so to speak.

 

[septsparkle]

Regular Guy,
Your post is most interesting. I belive that you are saying that since Rappaport has a vested interest in not bringing these diamonds in, he can't possibly be labeled a "journalist". I agree - journalists should report facts without bias from a neutral position. It is clear that neither Rappaport or IDEX Is neutral. But then, neither is Zimbabwe. All parties in the articles listed above have a vested interest one way or the other whether or not the diamonds are distributed in the UK,EU, and US.

My point about the system not being perfect was not in relation to this specific set of stones, but more that the system (hopefully) does not allow the distribution of conflict diamonds. Whether or note these Zimbabwe stones ARE these types of stones is far beyond my pay grade, so to speak.

This is exactly how I feel.

 

[Regular Guy]

Anne and September,

As per usual, I failed to be clear. I'll address three things:

1) The ostensible topic of who is or is not a journalist is a paper tiger...the principle of what is proper journalism could be attended to in a trivial way, but as they say with Watergate...follow the money. The point of what is journalism is not the point of any real interest here.

2) If we follow the money, and here I was not clear:

I belive that you are saying that since Rappaport has a vested interest in not bringing these diamonds in....

The important point I was trying to argue here...is that the idea, as a business man, that Rappaport has a perceived vested, personal, interest, in denying the diamonds...if wrong, incorrect, and in fact, the opposite is true. I believe he would personally benfit and profit from these diamonds being included. He provides a system for including them, and in doing so, he could profit from including them. By blocking them, he is not receiving these profits, and is hurting himself. So this second point could play to what you might prefer to be the first point. And that is...look for what is true. Please. I think Rappaport would have you do this, and I think his message, as a journalist, as a business man, and as an ethical person, is the more correct one.

Are the people of Zimbabwe suffering consequently? This is conceivably an ethical question, definitely one of pragmatics, but not a question of principle, as I can see it.

3) Again, to you, Anne, aspire to be a journalist yourself. You are not below the requisite paygrade, where you say...

Regular Guy,
Your post is most interesting. I agree - journalists should report facts without bias from a neutral position.
My point about the system not being perfect was not in relation to this specific set of stones, but more that the system (hopefully) does not allow the distribution of conflict diamonds. Whether or note these Zimbabwe stones ARE these types of stones is far beyond my pay grade, so to speak.

The critical question now becomes, as both Rappaport and Eve Zohar endeavor to report on...is...what is a conflict diamond. Eve says the Zimbabwe ones are not conflict diamonds. Rappaport says the definition that allows for this belief includes significant human rights abuses.

Follow the money and follow the truth. If you understand Rappaport's reporting is correct, please, don't deny the resulting analysis as part of your pay grade. It is YOUR money. You have choices as to what certifications to seek, and to spend it on.

 

[diagem]

Follow the money and follow the truth. If you understand Rappaport's reporting is correct, please, don't deny the resulting analysis as part of your pay grade. It is YOUR money. You have choices as to what certifications to seek, and to spend it on.

RG, do you know something we dont yet??

Maybe Rapaport should just start his own certification scheme and compete with KP.
Ooops, no good..., because then he (Rap) will get consideration...

Seriously now..., I dont think it can be as black or white as Rap (and you) wishes it to be + the fact that I dont think Rapaport has the ability to guarantee all stones on his RapNet exchange (at present) are as he would wish them to be (crystal clean).

And in my opinion..., as far as journalism..., Chaim Even Zohar is by no means on another level..., a much higher one.

 

[Regular Guy]

So, I do think there are some important issues here. I think you do, too, Diagem, which is why you made this post, although...your thread title may obscure those few who might actually be interested.

Your lead reply to my last note reviews that, yes..."my bad," a bad choice of words. Unfortunately, no, I do know of no certification scheme, separate from what we might hope from KP, but I fear we cannot, which is my main response, and I think Rappaport's, too. Truth be told, as you have quite sweetly observed recently, I am a complete non-professional in this area, but also, yes, I am interested, and try to stay tuned in. Hoping not to be too sloppy, let's maybe just use the benefit of your recent post, and see what seems to be true, not true, or in some kind of question. I'm guessing some things are clear, and some things are, maybe as you suggest, unclear. So, let's walk through them...again...being guided by your most recent post:

--------------------------

1 a)

Follow the money and follow the truth. If you understand Rappaport's reporting is correct, please, don't deny the resulting analysis as part of your pay grade. It is YOUR money. You have choices as to what certifications to seek, and to spend it on.

RG, do you know something we dont yet??

.

1 b)

Again, sorry, poor choice of language. I know of no certifying scheme. My point really was to say that the protection you might imagine Kimberly Process certification does not seem to offer much protection. I do believe Rappaport is trying to make this point. Frankly, from that point of view, I might say that to both keep the action possible, and perhaps, his own business viable, he limits the warning, and simply asks buyers to specifically avoid diamonds sourced from Marange. Although he does take the broader swipe at KP guaranteeing anything, his direction away from buyers seems more narrow.

2a)

[Maybe Rapaport should just start his own certification scheme and compete with KP.
Ooops, no good..., because then he (Rap) will get consideration...

]

2b)

I know only what I've read here and casually elsewhere...that Rap HAS in fact tried to develop a program of fairly traded diamonds...resulting in a significant investment, and returning much much less than spent. I believe no current flow of diamonds exists from his own efforts, and although he has lent his advice to others pursuing this, as I've written not long about about others like from the Clarity Project...there is very little flow from fair trade, representing no real competing source....however....this is not to say I wouldn't encourage anyone to be agressive in trying to seek any of such out

3a)

[

Seriously now..., I dont think it can be as black or white as Rap (and you) wishes it to be + the fact that I dont think Rapaport has the ability to guarantee all stones on his RapNet exchange (at present) are as he would wish them to be (crystal clean). [/color]

]

3b)

I'm not sure what you mean here. We could regard this, along with the last part of your statement, as what should be clarified and emphasized. Anyone with any good knowledge of what b1) KP stands for, and does not, b2) exactly what is known about the set of diamonds that Chikane has recently deemed to certify, with respect to human rights violations, b3) what future promises were elicited from Zimbabwe as a function of getting the agreement to certify, so that we can understand what positive value was actually bargained for in this agreement, and anyway, b4) you are possibly right about RapNet, but I personally don't know much about RapNet vs. not RapNet. I had not really ever, until reading your statement more closely, considered this to be a marketing ploy to get buyers to ask for only Rapnet sourced diamonds. Just the opposite, rather than imagining Joe consumer would think to ask for Rappaport's protected diamonds, I think we are only really seeing Rappaport actively working to instead throw cold water on both really his own diamonds, as well as any certified by KP, putting them all in the same muddy waters. I do not see any kind of drive for him to ask for his diamonds, but rather, a specific and public statement that KP is not your father's Oldsmobile, if it ever was.

4a)

[
And in my opinion..., as far as journalism..., Chaim Even Zohar is by no means on another level..., a much higher one.

4b)

I had to google Chaim Evan Zohar to see who he is. I butchered his name, and thank you for clarifying it. Certainly he seems knowledgeable, and has a reputation, and may be a competitor to Rappaport...possibly motivating him to come forward with a statement of some sort. So, to what would you point to in his statement that is "more right" than Rappaport.

Even Zohar says, and more than once, that:

" "There are no human rights violations or abuses involved with these KP-compliant mines."

By reading from a number of sources, I don't see where he gets this. It seems clear that:
b1) Human rights abuses have absolutely occured here, reported by many reputable agencies who monitor this

I should just stop there, since it seems to be the point you would need to support...since it is his assertion. Do you draw from any other source to conclude otherwise?

However, yes, I will extend beyond this, as has Rappaport, and say further, that:

b2) separate from these mines, it seems KP has more recently, clearly, reiterated that human rights violations are not in the effective domain of what the KP is set out to look after....but instead....more narrowly purports to protect against using funding for rebels. I'm not certain of this, but I believe it is Rappaport's point. I'm inclinded to understand this, still, until I hear a more clearly stated re-definition of what KP intends to protect the buyer from.


Best regards,

Ira Z.

 

[denverappraiser]

Regular Guy,
Your post is most interesting. I belive that you are saying that since Rappaport has a vested interest in not bringing these diamonds in, he can't possibly be labeled a "journalist". I agree - journalists should report facts without bias from a neutral position. It is clear that neither Rappaport or IDEX Is neutral. But then, neither is Zimbabwe. All parties in the articles listed above have a vested interest one way or the other whether or not the diamonds are distributed in the UK,EU, and US.

My point about the system not being perfect was not in relation to this specific set of stones, but more that the system (hopefully) does not allow the distribution of conflict diamonds. Whether or note these Zimbabwe stones ARE these types of stones is far beyond my pay grade, so to speak.

Both Mr. Rapaport and Mr. Evan-Zohar are extremely well connected industry insiders, both are well spoken thoughtful gentlemen, they are direct competitors with each other on a number of levels, and I have no problem calling BOTH first rate journalists. I disagree that journalism requires an outsider and, in many cases, it can ONLY be done justice by an insider. The world needs more writers like these two, not fewer. I would much prefer to see it directly from the source than from some 3rd party who has been interviewing the real folks (like Chaim and Martin) and then provides their own spin to the topic. The fact that they’re both skilled writers is just gravy.

They’re both very upfront about their positions in the industry, they are both forthcoming about potential conflicts of interest that may exist with their own business interests (in the case of Rapaport) or of their employers (in the case of Evan-Zohar). I only wish that all journalists were as good.

 

[septsparkle]

Regular Guy,
Your post is most interesting. I belive that you are saying that since Rappaport has a vested interest in not bringing these diamonds in, he can't possibly be labeled a "journalist". I agree - journalists should report facts without bias from a neutral position. It is clear that neither Rappaport or IDEX Is neutral. But then, neither is Zimbabwe. All parties in the articles listed above have a vested interest one way or the other whether or not the diamonds are distributed in the UK,EU, and US.

My point about the system not being perfect was not in relation to this specific set of stones, but more that the system (hopefully) does not allow the distribution of conflict diamonds. Whether or note these Zimbabwe stones ARE these types of stones is far beyond my pay grade, so to speak.

Both Mr. Rapaport and Mr. Evan-Zohar are extremely well connected industry insiders, both are well spoken thoughtful gentlemen, they are direct competitors with each other on a number of levels, and I have no problem calling BOTH first rate journalists. I disagree that journalism requires an outsider and, in many cases, it can ONLY be done justice by an insider. The world needs more writers like these two, not fewer. I would much prefer to see it directly from the source than from some 3rd party who has been interviewing the real folks (like Chaim and Martin) and then provides their own spin to the topic. The fact that they’re both skilled writers is just gravy.

They’re both very upfront about their positions in the industry, they are both forthcoming about potential conflicts of interest that may exist with their own business interests (in the case of Rapaport) or of their employers (in the case of Evan-Zohar). I only wish that all journalists were as good.

I concede. I had agreed with Anne's post from earlier but you bring up a very valid argument.

 

[AnneinGA]

Both Mr. Rapaport and Mr. Evan-Zohar are extremely well connected industry insiders, both are well spoken thoughtful gentlemen, they are direct competitors with each other on a number of levels, and I have no problem calling BOTH first rate journalists. I disagree that journalism requires an outsider and, in many cases, it can ONLY be done justice by an insider. The world needs more writers like these two, not fewer. I would much prefer to see it directly from the source than from some 3rd party who has been interviewing the real folks (like Chaim and Martin) and then provides their own spin to the topic. The fact that they’re both skilled writers is just gravy.

They’re both very upfront about their positions in the industry, they are both forthcoming about potential conflicts of interest that may exist with their own business interests (in the case of Rapaport) or of their employers (in the case of Evan-Zohar). I only wish that all journalists were as good.

I think that perhaps the line is blurred between a journalist and an expert. I agree that an expert, someone that knows the issue inside and out (an insider) has a viewpoint that has much more depth than a neutral party because they have detail that a neutral party would not have and they can choose what to reveal and what not to reveal. An insider does not have to be neutral. That they both stated their conflicts of interest does not make them neutral, it makes them forthright. I see one as a prosecutor and one as defense counsel, each with very valid arguments, and each with things to gain or lose.

A journalist is that neutral third party. Someone who reports on both sides of an issue, without bias, and allows the reader to make his or her own decision based on the facts presented in whatever form presented. "Journalists" of today are nothing like the ultimate journalist to me - Walter Cronkite, who everyone knew must have an opinion, but who was so careful to keep it concealed during his reports.

I concede as well that Mr. Rapaport and Mr. Evan-Zohar have stated their conflicts of interest. I think they are well respected experts in their field whose statement of their points of view are clear and concise and offer valid and compelling arguments.

Experts? Absolutely, positively. Writers? You bet. Journalists, not to me.

 

[diagem]

..... let's walk through them...again...being guided by your most recent post:

--------------------------

1 a)

Follow the money and follow the truth. If you understand Rappaport's reporting is correct, please, don't deny the resulting analysis as part of your pay grade. It is YOUR money. You have choices as to what certifications to seek, and to spend it on.

RG, do you know something we dont yet??

.

1 b)

Again, sorry, poor choice of language. I know of no certifying scheme. My point really was to say that the protection you might imagine Kimberly Process certification does not seem to offer much protection. I do believe Rappaport is trying to make this point. Frankly, from that point of view, I might say that to both keep the action possible, and perhaps, his own business viable, he limits the warning, and simply asks buyers to specifically avoid diamonds sourced from Marange. Although he does take the broader swipe at KP guaranteeing anything, his direction away from buyers seems more narrow.

RG, if you show me another option that offers at least as little protection as KP currently does, I will be happy to see/hear. Rapaport is attempting to make this point without having the information if his network is allowing the marketing of potential illicit Diamonds

2a)

[Maybe Rapaport should just start his own certification scheme and compete with KP.
Ooops, no good..., because then he (Rap) will get consideration...

]

2b)

I know only what I've read here and casually elsewhere...that Rap HAS in fact tried to develop a program of fairly traded diamonds...resulting in a significant investment, and returning much much less than spent. I believe no current flow of diamonds exists from his own efforts, and although he has lent his advice to others pursuing this, as I've written not long about about others like from the Clarity Project...there is very little flow from fair trade, representing no real competing source....however....this is not to say I wouldn't encourage anyone to be agressive in trying to seek any of such out

Rapaport's long extending hands in this industry are scattered over a huge amount of area's (so I suggest not worrying about any income loss to Rap), the difference I see is that KP is productive while Rap's FairTrade initiative is far less! Please lets remember that as of this writing most (+/- 80%, maybe someone can shed more light on this) of the Zimbabwean Rough is bought up by Indian manufacturers and they are voicing sounds they are seriously interested in the whole production out of that area. Now, simply lets check how many Indian firms are also marketing their Diamonds through Rap's RapNet.
Do you really believe Rap will materialize his threats??

RG..., I am having an awful time replying on these sort of 'scattered quotes" texts..., I think the reply format on PSI was simpler for me. Hope you understand

Both Rapaport & Even Zohar are an asset to this industry..., I believe Even Zohar is earning his livelihood through journalism only while Rap's earnings are not based on journalism only..., but I might be wrong as well with my believes