Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

WSJ Jumps the Shark

ritholtz.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 71 posts

Re: WSJ Jumps the Shark

#31

Post by mortenjorck »

RyanMcGreal wrote: post #7
ellyagg wrote: post #3

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.

Fair enough, but I think you pretty much have to read all news with an eye toward that outlet's particular editorial slant, and I'd just as well have editorializing upfront with the Economist instead of under the guise of being purely impartial.

Even when I don't agree with them, it's always an enlightening read.

Re: WSJ Jumps the Shark

#32

Post by waterlesscloud »

markpercival wrote: post #29
korch wrote: post #17

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 cancelled my subscription a year ago because of this. It's really a shame too, as it was one of the best papers out there. The frontpage always had one really interesting article and the rest(barring the op-ed) was really solid reporting.

I think people are dramatically overstating the degree to which the WSJ has increased its political content. There's a slight swing, but I believe people's perceptions are exaggerated because of what they expect from Murdoch.

I also think it's rare to talk about economics in a way that's free of political bias. I think most of the time the bias is just subliminal, and people are more likely to notice on WSJ at the moment due to Murdoch.

The bigger problem for me with the WSJ is that it seems to include more and more "soft" economic news (lifestyle, human interest, etc) and less "hard" news. I don't have hard data on it, but it feels that way. Could be my own version of Murdoch awareness.

Re: WSJ Jumps the Shark

#33

Post by SamAtt »

This is just an ad hominem attack as far as I can see. He links to two things to support his point but neither actually do

1. "Boskin's Obama Crash" But when you follow that link you find the article he was pointing to was an opinion piece so it doesn't support his point (which was that he'd always thought the OpEd page was crazy but that he now feels that's bleeding into the reporting)

2. "New Bank Rules Sink Stocks". His problem with this article, in his own words, is "we know that day-to-day action is mostly nonsense". He goes on to say "Assigning a definitive causative factor is at best a guessing game, at worst an exercise in futility." That's just foolish. There are brokers on the trading floor, you can ask them why they're selling and every news outlet reported it was because of proposed banking regulation so the logical assumption was that there is an overall sentiment on the floor. This isn't the WSJ. ABCNews, BBC, et al. reported the same thing (http://blogs.abcnews.com/theworldnewser/2010/01/dow-drops-20..., http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8473720.stm)

Re: WSJ Jumps the Shark

#34

Post by mortenjorck »

hop wrote: post #25
RyanMcGreal wrote: post #5

This judgment comes several years after the fact.

Its only been 2.5 years since he bought it. And it was awhile after that it started changing.

I know some people who would put the date as far back as 2002, the year they unintentionally created a certain, unfortunate class-warfare neologism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucky_duckies

Re: WSJ Jumps the Shark

#35

Post by noodle »

utnick wrote: post #15

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

if the NYT were a business and financial publication with a long history of levelheadedness and fact-based reporting, then yes, they would've also jumped the shark.

Re: WSJ Jumps the Shark

#36

Post by jonstokes »

SamAtt wrote: post #33

This is just an ad hominem attack as far as I can see. He links to two things to support his point but neither actually do 1. "Boskin's Obama Crash" But when you follow that link you find the article he was pointing to was an opinion piece so it doesn't support his point (which was that he'd always thought the OpEd page was crazy but that he now feels that's bleeding into the reporting) 2. "New Bank Rules Sink Stocks…

This is a really, really naive response. There isn't really anyone on the trading floor anymore. ECNs have taken over, and account for 97% to 100% of trading volume on any given day. No one trades from the floor anymore. So no, there's no group of people who are "the market" whom a reporter can poll for sentiment. You are completely and utterly wrong, and the only data you cite in support of your opinion is the fact that lesser outlets--outlets of the type that Ritholz has already said he files under "infotainment"--have glommed onto the same bogus explanation and run with it.

Ritholtz knows more than you will ever forget about what moves markets. He is spot-on, here.

Re: WSJ Jumps the Shark

#37

Post by RyanMcGreal »

hop wrote: post #28
RyanMcGreal wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

The articles likely have multiple authors that contribute to making them high quality and very concise. Nothing I read comes close to The Economist, so whatever they are doing, I works well. Also, being much more expensive than other magazines, they can afford to hang on to talent when others are shedding it.

The downside is potential for groupthink, which was clearly in evidence in the run-up to the Iraq War, which The Economist cheered on alongside the rest of the mainstream media.

Re: WSJ Jumps the Shark

#39

Post by SamAtt »

jonstokes wrote: post #36
SamAtt wrote: post #33

This is just an ad hominem attack as far as I can see. He links to two things to support his point but neither actually do 1. "Boskin's Obama Crash" But when you follow that link you find the article he was pointing to was an opinion piece so it doesn't support his point (which was that he'd always thought the OpEd page was crazy but that he now feels that's bleeding into the reporting) 2. "New Bank Rules Sink Stocks…

This is a really, really naive response. There isn't really anyone on the trading floor anymore. ECNs have taken over, and account for 97% to 100% of trading volume on any given day. No one trades from the floor anymore. So no, there's no group of people who are "the market" whom a reporter can poll for sentiment. You are completely and utterly wrong, and the only data you cite in support of your opinion is the fact…

Well first, and I mean this with minimal disrespect, but you clearly have a hero worship thing going here (see your last sentence). So you really have a bias of your own.

On your point, there are still people on the floor if you don't believe me turn on CNBC and you can see them. But even in a virtual floor it isn't like people don't keep in contact. The market lives and dies by social interactions and it always has. That's why the guy on his computer using e*trade isn't as effective as the guy in the brokerage house.

The point still remains that every news institution I can find reported this the same way (Dow drops because of Bank Regulation). So using it to attack the WSJ individually is ridiculous.

Post reply on HN