21–30 of 71 posts
The article boils down to one thing: "Obama is floating a bill the author likes. The general consensus is that the reason the market is down is BECAUSE of Obama's bill. The WSJ dares to report that the market is down BECAUSE of Obama's bill. Therefore the WSJ is are a bunch of no-good right-wing authoritarian fascists, and I'm going to stick my fingers in my ears and pretend that they don't exist".
The article boils down to one thing: "Obama is floating a bill the author likes. The general consensus is that the reason the market is down is BECAUSE of Obama's bill. The WSJ dares to report that the market is down BECAUSE of Obama's bill. Therefore the WSJ is are a bunch of no-good right-wing authoritarian fascists, and I'm going to stick my fingers in my ears and pretend that they don't exist".
Go look at the financial sector over the last month--it had a big spike and is now back to where it started. Then look at how closely it tracks the S&P 500. Banks are actually doing a little better, but it's tracking quite closely. There's a lot more to why markets move than proposed new regulation on banks.
The article boils down to one thing: "Obama is floating a bill the author likes. The general consensus is that the reason the market is down is BECAUSE of Obama's bill. The WSJ dares to report that the market is down BECAUSE of Obama's bill. Therefore the WSJ is are a bunch of no-good right-wing authoritarian fascists, and I'm going to stick my fingers in my ears and pretend that they don't exist".
My comment (above) has gotten three down votes in 5 minutes. Has anyone READ the article? I think that my summary is dead-on accurate. If you disagree, please post WHY you disagree.
1. Your summary of what the article "boils down to" includes this: "The general consensus is that the reason the market is down is BECAUSE of Obama's bill". There is no such thing in the article.
2. The article suggests reasons to think that the reason why the market is down is not "BECAUSE of Obama's bill". You neither mention these reason nor offer any objections to them. (The reasons are: (a) the market is noisy enough that typically day-to-day movements are mostly noise; (b) there is another good explanation for the market drop, namely China's recent doings.)
3. Your summary of the article includes this: "the WSJ is are a bunch of no-good right-wing authoritarian fascists, and I'm going to stick my fingers in my ears and pretend that they don't exist". The actual article's complaints about the WSJ's politics don't include anything about authoritarianism or fascism, and the author says not that he's going to pretend they don't exist but that he's not going to take them so seriously any more.
4. You offer no evidence of the alleged consensus, no indication of whose consensus it is, and no reason to think that the alleged consensus is correct.
so I guess the new york times jumped the shark too?: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/business/22markets.html Almost every news organization has had the same headline today
This judgment comes several years after the fact.
It's not like there are alternatives. The Times has let blatant editorializing sneak onto the front page and throughout every section for as long as I've been reading it, and its the paper of record. Read The Economist.
> Read The Economist. The Economist produces good content, but it's all editorializing, all the time. Articles aren't even attributed to their authors - they just spring fully formed from The Economist's notional forehead.
I love the content but it's kind of a bizarre approach to journalism to keep the authorship anonymous.
I can't imagine what their rationale is or why their obviously sharp staff stands for it.
I'm surprised this actually made it to HN. I've read Barry's blog and have met him in person. He's one of the brightest, most realistic financial commentators out there. We've seen an increase in media politicizing market movement. The example he cites was Obama coming out and making comments about financial regulation, and then the market takes a dump. So you'll see on Marketwatch, Y! Finance, Motley Fool and others…
It's not like there are alternatives. The Times has let blatant editorializing sneak onto the front page and throughout every section for as long as I've been reading it, and its the paper of record. Read The Economist.
> Read The Economist. The Economist produces good content, but it's all editorializing, all the time. Articles aren't even attributed to their authors - they just spring fully formed from The Economist's notional forehead.
As a long time reader of the WSJ, it definitely has become a Fox-ish paper under Murdoch. What's tragic is that right now the investing public's need for objective, non-politicized, long-term financial information has never been higher, but now the primary journalist institution is no longer providing it.
I'm surprised this actually made it to HN. I've read Barry's blog and have met him in person. He's one of the brightest, most realistic financial commentators out there. We've seen an increase in media politicizing market movement. The example he cites was Obama coming out and making comments about financial regulation, and then the market takes a dump. So you'll see on Marketwatch, Y! Finance, Motley Fool and others…
Ritholtz has an excellent blog, I don't know how he finds the time to write so much. Highly recommended.