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

41–50 of 71 posts

Re: WSJ Jumps the Shark

#41

Post by SamAtt »

tortilla wrote: post #10
tjic wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I didn't down vote you but I think people are disagreeing with your interpretation of the article. He made it clear in his article that he dislikes both sides. And from his previous articles, I believe him. He doesn't limit his attacks to just one party.

I'm sorry but this is bull. The man dislikes both sides but he disagrees with the right and thinks the left didn't go far enough. That's not the same thing.

In a slate profile (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2009/04/16/cassandras/inde...) he's listed as disliking the stimulus because it wasn't big enough and wanting the banking system nationalized. Without passing judgment on the merits of his philosophy the man is clearly a leftist.

Re: WSJ Jumps the Shark

#42

Post by gamble »

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.

Absolutely. I love the Economist in its way, but just for once I'd like to see them write an article where they admit that they don't have any idea what should be done.

Re: WSJ Jumps the Shark

#43

Post by xayide »

steveplace wrote: post #19
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.

Investor's Business Daily is a good alternative to the Journal.

I appreciate all of the data they include (even if most of it is processed using their proprietary metrics), but their articles aren't so great. They seem to take the attitude that articles are just filler - they rerun articles pretty regularly. But their data is extensive and relevant.

Re: WSJ Jumps the Shark

#44

Post by tortilla »

SamAtt wrote: post #41
tortilla wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't down vote you but I think people are disagreeing with your interpretation of the article. He made it clear in his article that he dislikes both sides. And from his previous articles, I believe him. He doesn't limit his attacks to just one party.

I'm sorry but this is bull. The man dislikes both sides but he disagrees with the right and thinks the left didn't go far enough. That's not the same thing. In a slate profile ( http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2009/04/16/cassandras/inde... ) he's listed as disliking the stimulus because it wasn't big enough and wanting the banking system nationalized. Without passing judgment on the merits of his philosophy the man…

And here he's calling Obama a sellout or close to it:

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/12/did-obama-sellout-to-wa...

Re: WSJ Jumps the Shark

#45

Post by mynameishere »

steveplace wrote: post #18

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…

So you'll see on Marketwatch, Y! Finance, Motley Fool and others about how the president's comments caused the market to drop. This is rubbish.

No, this is rubbish. When the government seeks to regulate huge profit-makers at banks, it's completely rational for those banks' values to fall. This is the consensus view of bullish and bearish commentators alike, and I have no idea why anyone would disagree. The blogger points out that commodities fell harder. That and a nickel and a time machine will get you a cup of coffee.

Short term noise in the market happens.

A five percent haircut is not "noise". http://www.google.com/finance?chdnp=1&chdd=1&chds=1&...

And those pundits who thought there was some correlation between politics and markets disappeared.

No they didn't, and the rally has been extremely political. I hate linking this over and over, but it needs to be understood. There is a near-perfect inverse correlation between the value of the dollar and the market:

http://www.google.com/finance?chdnp=1&chdd=1&chds=1&...

You can creepily see this happening on a tick-by-tick basis. I don't know why this is so perfect, but I suspect it almost has to be algos doing it. This is the kind of thing that the government (may) start regulating.

http://www.google.com/finance?chdnp=1&chdd=1&chds=1&... [This is not historical:

http://www.google.com/finance?chdnp=1&chdd=1&chds=1&...

Re: WSJ Jumps the Shark

#46

Post by anigbrowl »

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.

That's what's so great about it. I don't want the author(s) of an article to reinforce a particular personality, as seen in so many other papers/magazines where the writers are trying to build a public brand around themselves. I find no difficulty in separating the reportage from the editorial viewpoint. That element is always present anyway, and I'd rather have it clearly articulated.

Re: WSJ Jumps the Shark

#47

Post by SamAtt »

tortilla wrote: post #44
SamAtt wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry but this is bull. The man dislikes both sides but he disagrees with the right and thinks the left didn't go far enough. That's not the same thing. In a slate profile ( http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2009/04/16/cassandras/inde... ) he's listed as disliking the stimulus because it wasn't big enough and wanting the banking system nationalized. Without passing judgment on the merits of his philosophy the man…

And here he's calling Obama a sellout or close to it: http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/12/did-obama-sellout-to-wa...

That just makes my point. Follow me here...

The original comment was saying "this guy is partisan and that's why he doesn't like the article".

You tried to refute that by saying "He dislikes both sides"

I'm saying he doesn't really dislike both sides. He dislikes one side and agrees with but is disappointed in the other. Those are vastly different things.

Re: WSJ Jumps the Shark

#48

Post by matrix »

waterlesscloud wrote: post #32
markpercival wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 mo…

The reason I canceled my WSJ subscription had nothing to do with ideology. I used to read the WSJ for the in-depth stories about topics that aren't necessarily in the headlines right now or that are otherwise not especially mainstream. After the Murdoch acquisition, the WSJ has increasingly focused on shorter stories about more populist topics. I can get that anywhere, so I no longer have a reason to read the WSJ rather than any other paper out there. I'm sure many others feel the same way.

Re: WSJ Jumps the Shark

#49

Post by bitdiddle »

In this case I really hate to say I told you so, but I cancelled my subscription the day the Murdoch deal was done precisely for this reason.

I was a daily reader since 1977. It was an awesome paper for investors and business folks with a clear line between the editorial content and the remainder. Even the editorial page always published opposing views.

It was interesting that when I cancelled, the lady I spoke with me told me that under the new ownership it was going to be free, which was irrelevant to me. She mentioned that many said the exact same thing, $100/yr. was peanuts for such a high quality tool of the trade.

I recommend Bloomberg online for reasonable quality and good numbers.

Re: WSJ Jumps the Shark

#50

Post by jey »

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.

Yup, but at least they're blatant and out in the open about their editorial slant (pro-globalization). They don't pretend to be "impartial".
Post reply on HN