#SRAD ratings

[reportwire]

SRAD Stock Price | Sportradar Group AG Cl A Stock Quote (U.S.: Nasdaq) | MarketWatch

SRAD Stock Price | Sportradar Group AG Cl A Stock Quote (U.S.: Nasdaq) | MarketWatch

Sportradar Group AG Cl A Sportradar Group AG engages in the provision of sports betting and entertainment products and services. The company operates trough the following reportable segments: Rest of the World Betting, RoW AV, United States, and Other. The Rest of the World Betting segment include betting and gaming solutions. The RoW Betting AV segment provides live streaming solutions for…

[maddiemacroeconomics]

Chapter 15

In the short term after SRAS decreased, I would expect the local economy to raise prices, unemployment would increase which would lead to an overall lower good output. These would be the causes for a decrease in short run aggregate demand to decrease as well. As for relation to the long term, the government could start buying bonds from the public to increase the money supply and shift things back. According to what I read about short runs, they usually last 4-6 months. The amount of time it takes to shift can vary depending on if it is AD or AS but usually, one will shift first causing the other to follow. I do think that in a scenario like this, the equilibrium level would have to be lowered unless there was intervention. With no intervention, demand would eventually (a long time) stop decreasing because supply will have had enough time to catch up.

From what I was reading about where SRAS is now, I don't think it has changed much. Demand has not gone back up much either. Price is still increasing on some things like food, but I read that it is also going down because inflation is going down. I predict that prices will follow the rate of inflation and that GDP won't be higher than usual because of lower SRAS and SRAD.

[em4442]

Chapter 15 Reflection

As a result of both of those shifts in general terms, once SRAS decreases, the level of output will decrease and the price level will increase. In turn, this will reduce demand thus SRAD will decrease as well resulting in a larger decrease in output but lowering price levels as their is no increase in demand to drive up prices of products with small amounts of production due to limited supply of materials.

In respect to my local economy, while it doesn't thrive off of big firms or industries like big cities do, it does depend on those transported products from those larger cities. As well as that, small businesses may suffer and may have to increase their prices to accommodate for a decrease in production of their product. Therefore, a decrease in the supply would consequently, spike prices. Moreover, these higher price levels are taken out of consumers incomes. Because consumers can't afford these products in certain markets (microeconomics perspective), demand decreases (so long as they have substitution). However, in the Aggregate demand model and aggregate supply model, looking at the economy as a whole (macroeconomics), the short-run supply curve and demand curve will always meet at equilibrium hence on the long-run supply curve. More specifically, if SRAS were to decrease, output would decrease and prices would rise. In response (slowly by the natural fluctuations of the economy or policies to increase demand), demand will increase causing the output to go back to its original location but price levels to rise and most importantly, everything is back to the equilibrium point (long run Aggregate Supply line) and the only change was the increase in price levels. Indeed, if demand were to fall , output would fall and prices would drop. In response, supply would increase putting output levels back to normal but prices to drop overall as it reaches equilibrium once again on the Long run Aggregate supply line. So, the short-run and long-run are related because despite the fluctuations demonstrated in the short-run, they are just deviations to the long-run. Short-run curve shifts tend to vary in time-frame. In respect to my local economy, I think it really depends on how quickly supply chains go back to normal so businesses can start hiring more people, increase production, etc. I also think it depends on how fast demand starts rising. Inflation may largely affect this because while the government assisted households and firms during the pandemic ultimately causing an increase in the money supply, which adversely increased demand for products, the now threatening impact of rising inflation especially in a small town may drive down demand as more of their income is put towards goods and services and less is put into savings. Indeed, following the aggregate model theory, eventually, supply will once again increase as lower price levels encourage businesses to increase employment, increase production, etc. So, supply really depends on the rate at which the company decides to increase production relative to the right economic conditions in respect to the model, while demand may be impacted by certain policies. One such policy that I saw happen in my local town was stimulus checks in attempt to increase spending (demand) to accommodate for the adverse shift in aggregate supply. I don't think the new long run equilibrium will be at a lower level. I believe this because while supply decreased (increasing prices, decreasing output) and demand decreased (decreasing prices, decreasing output) prices are constantly fluctuating depending on the aggregate supply and the aggregate demand.

Now in 2022, looking at news outlets it seems like we are still having supply chain issues but have a large increase in demand. This ultimately results in an increase in price levels. This can help explain the threat of rising inflation rates which don't seem to be leveling out unless there is government or fed intervention. Indeed, by attempting to decrease the money supply as a result of the pandemic, these attempts may help slow down the rising inflation rates. For the coming year, I believe the price level will continue to rise considering the expectancy of rising inflation rates. Because of this, GDP growth may slow down and price levels continue to rise over the next few years as a consequence from the pandemic policies and largely increasing the money supply over the last couple years.

[18scholars]

Chapter 15 Reflection

Spring of 2020 the world economy experienced a significant decrease in SRAS (short run aggregate supply). That was followed by a decrease in SRAD (short run aggregate demand). Draw those on a graph. What would you expect to happen in your local economy as a result of those shifts? How do you expect the short run and the long run to be related? How long do you expect the short run to be? Why? Will the new long run equilibrium be at a lower level? Why or why not? 

At the beginning of the pandemic when businesses closed during lock down, this caused Short Run Aggregate Supply (SRAS) to decrease drastically. Additionally, because people weren’t working (or going out) they stopped buying as much. This caused Short Run Aggregate Demand (SRAD) to also greatly decrease. In my local economy, due to these shifts,  I would expect to see lower quantities of output and higher prices. In fact, this is what I did see happen in my local economy.

I believe short run is a period in time in which some factors are fixed. Once those fixed factors start to change, then short run ends. In this case, short run lasts as long as actual price differs from expected price. When expected price, the fixed factor, adjusts to match the actual price then short run ends. This price discrepancy could be from a sticky-wage, sticky-price, or people misperceptions about prices. Once wages, prices, or people’s perceptions change to match the actual prices of things then short run has ended, and it can now be seen as long run. At this point you can now compare how things are affected in the long run versus short run. 

The shift reduction of labor can reduce the overall natural level of supply which can cause the Long Run Aggregate Supply (LRAS) to shift. This would leave the economy at a lower level of output than it had previously. Like in the short run you see a decrease to the level of supply, however in demand you might see it readjust back up in the long run. Thus you might see even higher prices, as supply struggles to find equilibrium with demand in the long run. The new long run equilibrium would most likely be at a higher price and lower quantity of output. Unless something else could increase the natural level of supply, shifting the LRAS. 

Now jump to summer 2022. Where are we now? Has SRAS shifted back out or are we still restraining it? Has AD fully recovered? What are you seeing in terms of changes in the price level? What do you predict for the fall (price level and GDP growth? What is the basis for your prediction?

Now we are still at a lower level of supply as many businesses have reopened but are struggling to find enough labor. However, the SRAS has increase a little since the beginning of the pandemic, though not back to what is was before the pandemic started. Demand has also started moving back up. This also is not yet back to the levels it was before the pandemic. 

In terms of the price level there is a huge increase and they are just continuing to get higher. My prediction is that as inflation continues pushing prices up, and interest rates increase in attempts to reduce the effect of inflation, this could reduce capital causing further reduction in LRAD. Also with businesses struggling to find workers and increased interest rates making borrowing harder this could further reduce LRAS. All this would hurt the overall GDP growth. 

[bmendez4]

Principles of Macroeconomics Chapter 15 Reflection

​Spring of 2020 the world economy experienced a significant decrease in SRAS (short run aggregate supply).  That was followed by a decrease in SRAD (short run aggregate demand).  Draw those on a graph. What would you expect to happen in your local economy as a result of those shifts? How do you expect the short run and the long run to be related? How long do you expect the short run to be? Why? Will the new long run equilibrium be at a lower level? Why or why not? Now jump to spring 2022.  Where are we now? Has SRAS shifted back out or are we still restraining it? Has AD recovered? When both the SRAS and SRAD decreased back in the spring of 2020 my local economy suffered quite a bit. Like many other places I’m sure some business shut down because of the pandemic. On the other hand, prices for gas were low if I remember correctly, it was at around $2.50. When congress reduces government spending government spending to balance the budget, it needs to consider both long-run effects on saving and growth and the short-run effects on aggregate demand and employment. When the Fed reduces the growth rate of the money supply, it must take into account the long-run effect on inflation as well as the short run effect on production. In all parts of government, policymakers must keep in mind both long-run and short-run goals. (Pg. 362) Due to the price levels falling the equilibrium will be at a low level. I believe that were are slowly recovering meaning the equilibrium is slowly shifting back to the way it was before the pandemic.

[annette-macroecon]

Chapter 15

A decrease in SRAS essentially gives us higher prices, less “stuff”, and more unemployment. A following occurrence of a decrease in SRAD also causes inflation as well as higher unemployment rates. As aggregate demand and GDP rise and fall together, we would see a decrease in our GDP overall, on top of all the other decreases. Short term causes dont always create long term effects, but if they did, then our economy would be in trouble. Since short term is just short term, it won't always mean anything significant for the long term. I would say short term is about 4-6 months and anything more is long term. I think the long term equilibrium may be lower for a while but it will eventually return to equilibrium. Today we are still struggling but have improved since 2020. I wouldn't say either has fully recovered but they are recovering.  

[adonisaurearthshake]

Reflection 15 Question: Spring of 2020 the world economy experienced a significant decrease in SRAS (short run aggregate supply).  That was followed by a decrease in SRAD (short run aggregate demand) …  What would you expect to happen in your local economy as a result of those shifts? There are few factors to consider, to name a few: Aggerated supply is most likely to happen, such as, decrease in corporate taxes on producers. Production goes up and an expected increase with inflation. Aggerated demand is most likely happen, such as, a decrease in government spending and fear of a recession. Price levels, real GDP, Unemployment Interest rates and exports, they all had the ability to increase, decrease, or remain the same. How do you expect the short run and the long run to be related? The long run is a period of time in which all factors of production and costs are variable. In the long run, firms are able to adjust all costs, whereas in the  HYPERLINK "https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/shortrun.asp" short run firms are only able to influence prices through adjustments made to production levels. How long do you expect the short run to be? The short run does not refer to a specific duration of time but rather is unique to the firm, industry or economic variable being studied. Why? The short run and the  HYPERLINK "https://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/longrun.asp" long run is that in the short run, firms face both variable and fixed costs, which means that output, wages, and prices do not have full freedom to reach a new  HYPERLINK "https://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/equilibrium.asp" equilibrium. Equilibrium refers to a point in which opposing forces are balanced. Will the new long run equilibrium be at a lower level? Over the long run, a firm will search for the production technology that allows it to produce the desired level of output at the lowest cost. Why or why not? The long run is associated with the LRAC curve along which a firm would minimize its cost per unit for each respective long run quantity of output. Firms examining a long run understand that they cannot alter levels of production in order to reach an  HYPERLINK "https://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/equilibrium.asp" equilibrium between supply and demand. long run models may shift away from short-run equilibrium, in which  HYPERLINK "https://www.investopedia.com/articles/economics/11/intro-supply-demand.asp" supply and demand react to price levels with more flexibility.  Now jump to summer 2021…  Where are we now? I would have to say, we are the same, still. Has SRAS shifted back out or are we still restraining it? I feel we are restraining because prices are still high and continue to rise. Goods being produced are still slim and slow to receive. Has AD recovered? I disagree and would like to suggest that a short-run shift is needed, regarding the aggerated demand. That way the equilibrium, price, and out levels will most likely change. References  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UwAQRnpVMzI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjpSKZoQDoY https://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/longrun.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/shortrun.asp https://courses.lumenlearning.com/boundless-economics/chapter/the-aggregate-demand-supply-model/

[dlanda-blog1]

Chapter 15 Reflection

Spring of 2020 the world economy experienced a significant decrease in SRAS.  That was followed by a decrease in SRAD.  Draw those on a graph.  What would you expect to happen in your local economy as a result of those shifts? How do you expect the short run and the long run to be related? How long do you expect the short run to be? Why?  Will the new long run equilibrium be at a lower level? Why or why not?  

With everything going on with COVID, the demand and supply really took a toll and had a significant decrease. The aggregated demand curve shifted to the left, and there were many reasons why. Many places where people buy things, such as restaurants and retail stores, were shut down, which meant dollars remained longer in people's wallets and bank accounts because they were not being spent on goods and services. When it comes to the aggregated supply curve shift, it didn't impact right away, causing it to stay the same for the short run. As for the long run, it would cause the curve to shift to the left. The reason being the unemployment rate took a big hit when the pandemic caused many businesses to close and lay off their workers temporarily. The long-run will be lower because depending on how much COVID keeps affecting everything, it could eventually lead to more unemployment.

[sherristockman]

How University Foundations Circumvent Conflict of Interest Disclosure Rules and Hide Corporate Ties to Faculty Dr. Mercola By Dr. Mercola In the last few years, freedom of information act (FOIA) requests have revealed a loophole that allows corporations to hide funds given to university-based researchers and academics, thereby also hiding their behind-the-scenes collaborations to promote corporate viewpoints while maintaining an air of independence. A recent defamation suit offers an intriguing opportunity to shed even more light on this, what appears to be, common practice. FOIA Documents Revealed Professor's Big Ag Links Kevin Folta — a plant scientist and professor at the University of Florida and an outspoken advocate of genetic engineering — became a posterchild for this kind of disclosure avoidance when, two years ago, a FOIA request by the California-based activist group US Right to Know (USRTK) produced correspondence revealing Folta had instructed Monsanto on how to avoid disclosing funding his work by depositing the money into the university's SHARE (Special Help for Agricultural Research and Education) contribution account. As noted by Folta in his proposal to Monsanto,1 "a SHARE contribution … is not subject to IDC and is not in a conflict-of-interest account. In other words, SHARE contributions are not publicly noted. This eliminates the potential concern of the funding organization influencing the message." Put another way, by making a SHARE contribution, the link between Folta and Monsanto would remain hidden, and his public promotion of biotech would not be tainted by obvious suspicions of conflicts of interest. This is one of the biggest scams going. Universities have very strict conflict of interest rules in place, all of which are effectively circumvented by giving the funds as a grant to the University of Florida Foundation, which operates as a separate, non-public entity. The foundation then issues the money to individual researchers' programs. Yet, even though the money can be easily earmarked for a specific individual or program, financial contributions to the foundation do not need to be publicly disclosed. While this loophole is news for many, evidence suggests researchers and academics have routinely used it to avoid conflicts of interest disclosure rules. Bruce Chassy was caught doing the same thing. An investigation by Chicago WBEZ news discovered Monsanto paid the now retired University of Illinois' professor more than $57,000 over two years for travel, writing and speaking expenses, yet Chassy never disclosed his financial ties to the company on state and university conflict of interest disclosure forms.2 This is a Flash-based audio and may not be playable on mobile devices. How Universities Incentivize Nondisclosure of Conflicts of Interest Nondisclosure of conflicts of interest are in some ways actually incentivized at universities. Most donations to university foundations are granted a waiver for indirect costs (IDCs). As explained by the National Science Foundation, IDCs are "costs which are not readily identifiable with a particular cost objective (e.g., direct organizational activity or project), but nevertheless are necessary for the general operation of an organization."3 Examples of such overhead costs include salaries for accountants and miscellaneous personnel, rent, utilities, computers and software, just to name a few. This was the case for both Chassy and Folta. By being granted a waiver for IDCs, the burden of these costs is shifted to the students of the university and taxpayers by way of tuition and government funding. So, corporations are essentially piggybacking on students and taxpayers by getting waivers of IDC while simultaneously keeping their funding hidden. Papers have been written about how this system impacts taxpayer funded research (research funded by government grants). As noted by the Sponsored Research Administration4 at Florida State University, "It is important to remember that the inclusion of these charges results in the support of research efforts across the campus. To request waivers of negotiated and allowable charges means a decreased SRAD [Sponsored Research and Development Trust Fund] pool and a corresponding reduction in the research and creative activities that the university stimulates and supports." In their paper, "The Economics of University Indirect Cost Reimbursement in Federal Research Grants," Roger Noll and William Rogerson write:5 "The federal government has been the most important source of funds for academic research since the 1950s. Nearly a third of this support takes the form of indirect cost recovery (overhead). Long a source of conflict between universities and the government, in recent years the indirect cost controversy has escalated, with most research universities intensively investigated for alleged abuses … [B]oth universities and the federal government would be better off if the existing indirect cost reimbursement system were replaced by a system of fixed reimbursement rates that were not related to a university's actual indirect costs." Paid Academics Become Part of Industry-Controlled PR Arm Folta publicly stated he had "no formal connection to Monsanto"6 and denied ever accepting payments from Big Ag, including Monsanto.7 The FOIA request and subsequent publication of the correspondence between Folta and Monsanto created an abrupt end to Folta's status as an independent expert on genetically modified organisms (GMOs). The documents clearly show Monsanto paid Folta to travel around the country to speak about the merits of GMOs. As Folta himself put it: "I'm glad to sign on to whatever you like, or write whatever you like.".8 At the time, Gary Ruskin, executive director of USRTK told Nature,9 "I think it's important for professors who take money from industry to disclose it. And if they're not disclosing it, that's a problem. And if they say they aren't taking money, and they are, then that's a problem." The documents also revealed the biotechnology PR firm Ketchum drafted answers directed to Folta on the GMO Answers website. While Folta claimed he typically ignored the prewritten answers, it shows that paid academics and researchers are part of a tightly controlled PR arm of the industry. Once the $25,000 unrestricted grant from Monsanto (funneled through the University Foundation to avoid disclosure) became publicly known, the money was reallocated to a local food pantry. Folta claims he "talked to Monsanto about returning the money," but that the company was "totally against it" because "it looks like an admission of guilt."10 The ironic part is that by re-donating the money to a food pantry, they confirm that the money was indeed earmarked for Folta and no one else. Folta Files Defamation Suit Against New York Times The New York Times (NYT) was among the first to report Folta's conflicts of interest.11 Now, Folta has filed a defamation suit12 against the paper and journalist Eric Lipton, who wrote the article. In his suit, Folta claims his "academic reputation was unfairly tarnished, his health harmed and his personal safety jeopardized" by Lipton's "scandalous" article. According to the Cornell Alliance for Science: 13 "Folta … contends that Lipton and the NYT intentionally 'misrepresented him as a covertly paid operative' of Monsanto in order to further their own 'anti-GMO agenda.' The NYT article had identified him, for example, as an 'aggressive biotech proponent with financial ties to Monsanto,' a claim Folta strongly refutes. Folta … told the Alliance for Science that he filed the lawsuit both to stop the 'spiral of silence' that such reporting creates among other academics and also to regain his reputation. 'When you're portrayed as trading lobbying for grant money, that's the kiss of death … You realize that you're the walking dead in your career.' Folta said other scientists have told him they are now reluctant to speak up publicly on the controversy around GMOs because they feared the harm that could come to them from similar adverse coverage." The NYT has vowed to "defend the lawsuit vigorously," adding that, "Our story was carefully researched and the documents underlying the story were posted online to give readers the opportunity to see for themselves the research we developed and relied upon." It is seriously unlikely that Folta can prevail against the NYT's legal team and deep pockets, especially considering some of the arguments brought forth in his suit. Take paragraph 40, for example, which reads:14 "The Defendants deliberately chose the caption "if you spend enough time with skunks, you start to smell like one" to insinuate that Dr. Folta is a "skunk." This was offensive, malicious, and reckless." The lawsuit also addresses Folta's upset at being blocked by Lipton on Twitter. Paragraph 136 of Folta's suit reads: "In order to cause even more mental harm to Dr. Folta, Defendant Lipton then blocked Dr. Folta from viewing Lipton's malicious tweets, so that Dr. Folta was not even able to see what defamatory and harmful words Lipton was publishing next, even though it was, in fact, Lipton who was targeting Dr. Folta, and never vice versa." The Real Story — University Foundations Serve to Hide Conflicts of Interest I think it's important to realize that the real story here is the fact that money laundering is occurring through universities, and how it's occurring. In order to clamp down on undisclosed conflicts of interest, this loophole really needs to be fully exposed — and closed. NYT lawyers have a unique opportunity to do just that here, were they to insist on calling in the administrators, internal managers and accountants of the SHARE program for deposition. I don't think Folta realizes that by suing the NYT, he opens the door for them to blow this whole nondisclosure sham wide-open. All they have to do is ask the administrators if it's routine to accept corporate grants and earmark them for specific individuals or projects — in other words, is the program being routinely used to hide corporate conflict of interest connections? Remember, professors are in fact incentivized to hide corporate conflicts of interest and to bypass IDC recovery, shifting those costs onto students and taxpayers instead. Were the NYT to do so, it could turn into a truly huge story with massive ramifications. It could go a very long way toward forcing greater transparency. When corporate funding of university professors remains undisclosed, it not only deceives the public, it also undermines education. The fact that the University of Florida Foundation deleted a number of its "honor roll donors" for 2013/201415 — right around the same time that the NYT revealed Folta's industry connections — only adds to suspicions that corporate funding is in fact being hidden through its SHARE program. The following are screenshots of deleted donors, captured when the initial FOIA responses were received, in anticipation that they might be removed (a hunch over at USRTK that turned out to be correct). Deleted donors include BASF, Bayer, Syngenta, Pioneer, Monsanto and Dow Chemical. "Gold" donors, such as Monsanto and BASF, have donated more than $1 million. "Diamond" donors such as Syngenta have donated in excess of $10 million. These screenshots are the only public evidence remaining that these donations were made; these webpages are not even available using Wayback Machine. So, just how much of these millions of dollars were in fact earmarked and funneled to specific faculty members to avoid public scrutiny? It's also worth noting the following quote on the very last screen shot: "The Foundation … also serves as fiduciary, taking care of the gift assets to ensure they are used in accordance with our donors' wishes" — yet another glaring piece of evidence suggesting that donations are earmarked for certain individuals and can thus be "laundered" through the Foundation without having to be publicly disclosed. USRTK Sues University of Florida In a separate twist, USRTK is suing the University of Florida for failure to provide all the emails required by freedom-of-information law.16,17 In a July 11 press release, USRTK explains its lawsuit is aimed to:18 " … [C]ompel the University of Florida to comply with public records requests about the university's relationship with agrichemical companies that produce genetically engineered seeds and pesticides. 'We are conducting an investigation of the food and agrichemical industries, their front groups and public relations operatives, their ties to universities, and the health risks of their products, said Gary Ruskin, co-director of U.S. Right to Know. 'The public has a right to know if and when taxpayer-funded universities and academics are collaborating with corporations to promote their products and viewpoints.'" The NYT article that gave rise to Folta's defamation suit was in large part based on the records obtained by USRTK from the University of Florida. But Folta was only one of dozens of individuals for whom the USRTK sought correspondence, to assess hidden ties between the university and the agrichemical industry. One of them is Jack M. Payne, senior vice president for agriculture and natural resources at the University of Florida. USRTK specifically requested correspondence sent between Payne and employees of the University of Florida Foundation. In mid-December 2015, the university handed over 42 pages, but refused to release any remaining documents. Considering the University Foundation deleted stellar donors from their site only makes obtaining correspondence with Foundation employees all the more pertinent. Yet, even though emails were sent to and from a university email address, the University of Florida claims the emails did not involve official university business and therefore shouldn't be made public. Apparently, the University of Florida is none too fond of transparency in general. According to USRTK, "Professor Payne is not an employee of the Foundation, and email communications sent or received by him in the course of official business are public records," adding that even if the court were to find some of the emails could be exempt, "the proper procedure would be to require Defendant to furnish the documents to the Court for an in camera inspection." College Foundation Caught Misspending Funds There are more reasons than one for wanting to avoid public scrutiny of Foundation funds. A 2015 article19 by Columbia Journalism Review revealed the case of Robert Breuder, president of DuPage College. Breuder was found to have expensed hunting excursions, expensive wines, dinners and other frivolous, personal expenses to the College of DuPage Foundation, the mission of which is to raise funds for student scholarships. The Chicago Tribune requested documents related to Breuder's spending under the state public-records law, but was told such records were unavailable. It wasn't until the Tribune filed a lawsuit to compel disclosure that Breuder's misspending came to light. A refrain common to many college and university foundations is noted in this article: "In its answer to the Tribune's complaint, the college … denies that the foundation is a public body or a subsidiary of one. It denies that the foundation is contracted with a public body to perform public functions on the college's behalf. And, thus, it denies that the foundation is subject to the public-records law." The Tribune, meanwhile, argued "the college is using its foundation, housed on campus and staffed by college employees, 'as an artifice to circumvent' the law: 'The foundation is mostly or entirely under the control of [the college, which] has been using the existence of the foundation as an excuse or a subterfuge to shield its financial records and expenditures from public view.'" Watchdog Journalism Is a Vital Public Service Jake Griffin, assistant managing editor for watchdog reporting at the Daily Herald said: "What good does it serve to keep the activities of the foundation free of public scrutiny and oversight, especially considering [that it's] using the auspices of the college as the means for generating funding?" As suggested by Columbia Journalism Review, journalists play a vital role when it comes to keeping public organizations honest and the public informed. Folta may blame the NYT for the unraveling of his career and health, but the evidence shows he was collaborating with industry and denied it. It if weren't for Lipton and other journalists, he'd still be pulling the wool over everyone's eyes. Even though Folta still maintains he had no financial ties to Monsanto, the evidence shows he did, so it would appear he's suing the NYT to intimidate journalists from exposing these undisclosed conflicts of interest. Last year, David Cuillier, director of the University of Arizona School of Journalism said,20 "I think there are a ton of flags that need to be raised when it comes to university foundations. I think it's one of the most underreported scams in America. It's total slush fund … What a great way to hide money for a university." Indeed. It appears it has been a marvelous way to throw a veil over potential funding bias, educational bias and all sorts of conflicts of interest. The fact that this is now coming to light is good news for everyone except those trying to hide their wrongdoings. And, if we're lucky, NYT attorneys will depose the University of Florida Foundation's administrators and accountants, to give us all a clearer picture of the full extent of this scam.