10 ms·

WSJ Jumps the Shark

81 points by tortilla 17y ago

tjic 17y ago
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".
- me325r4534534 17y ago
  you are an idiot, a bird brain. please kill yourself.
- tjic 17y ago
  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.
  - tjic 17y ago
    Nice. Two calm comments of mine, both down voted to 0 or lower. ...and yet someone making no points and calling names (below) still has a positive score. You down voters ought to be ashamed of yourselves - this is a marketplace of IDEAS, and yet you're just lashing out. Very mature. Very much in the spirit of HN.
    - noodle 17y ago
      can you point out in the article, with quotes, where your ideas are validated? i read the article first, read your comment, and then re-read the article and nowhere do i see any support for your summary. the only thing i can imagine is that this article doesn't line up with your own personal belief system, and you're violently rejecting it.
    - KWD 17y ago
      Re-read your comment, and I don't think you can really classify it as 'calm'. It clearly shows your political motivation, the same as you accuse the author.
    - mquander 17y ago
      Your comments are not calm, they are flamebait; and your opinions don't appear to have any connection to the actual article, in which the author describes specific reasons why he thought the Journal's coverage was poor (e.g. their failure to distinguish between financial and commodity markets, their failure to mention China's announcement.)
  - ajross 17y ago
    I think the downvotes have more to do with people not wanting to see baldly political rants. The article was about the Wall Street Journal. You replied with an off topic ad-hominem about the authors motivations and intelligence. Bad form.
    - waterlesscloud 17y ago
      Technically, the article is about the politics of the WSJ, and the poster responded with a comment on the author's politics. You can't talk about politics without talking about politics.
      - rayval 17y ago
        Technically, the article is about the quality of journalism in the WSJ (plus of course the impact that politics has had on that quality), and the poster responded with a comment on the author's politics and completely ignored the issue of content quality. You can't talk about journalism by talking only about politics.
  - tortilla 17y ago
    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.
    - SamAtt 17y ago
      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/index.html 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.
      - tortilla 17y ago
        And here he's calling Obama a sellout or close to it: http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/12/did-obama-sellout-to-wall-street/ http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/12/did-obama-sellout-to-wa...
        SamAtt 17y ago
        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.
        tortilla 17y ago
        Yeah, I see your point. I probably shouldn't have said, "He dislikes both sides" when I should have said, "He attacks/criticizes both sides." My intent was to show he's not some blind partisan hack. I'm not sure if he's a leftist either. Some people accused him of being a libertarian in the past.
  - gjm11 17y ago
    I disagree because: 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.
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
- KWD 17y ago
  I think you need to re-read the article. Your 'general consensus' could be phrased better as 'general media consensus', in my opinion. The author's point was that you cannot clearly establish causation in the market, and that there could be numerous reasons for the drop and he presented several other potential causes, and that analysis of segments of the market did not really correspond to the Obama announcement as the main cause. I don't think he outright rejects that it may have had some impact. In general, what I take away from the article is that the tone of the Business section of the website used to be just 'business', and that you could expect clear analysis. He no longer feels that is the case, and as such, the WSJ is becoming more just another 'general media' outlet, and not as special as it once was.
- steveplace 17y ago
  But the market wasn't down because of Obama's bill.
- jonknee 17y ago
  Did you read the whole thing? The biggest losers were commodities, not banks. Many banks also just reported quarterly losses and signs of continued economic trouble. The "general consensus" is what it is because of sloppy reporting like the WSJ provided. 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. http://www.google.com/finance?catid=58211593 http://www.google.com/finance?catid=58211593
ellyagg 17y ago
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.
- RyanMcGreal 17y ago
  > 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.
  - dschobel 17y ago
    That's my biggest criticism of the economist, that the content is not attributed to any author. 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.
    - absconditus 17y ago
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist#Tone_and_voice http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist#Tone_and_voice
  - hop 17y ago
    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.
    - RyanMcGreal 17y ago
      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.
RyanMcGreal 17y ago
This judgment comes several years after the fact.
- hop 17y ago
  Its only been 2.5 years since he bought it. And it was awhile after that it started changing.
  - mortenjorck 17y ago
    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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucky_duckies
    - dagw 17y ago
      But that was in an editorial op ed piece. Their op ed pieces have always been political, but they always used to do a good job to make sure the politics doesn't leak out from there.
utnick 17y ago
so I guess the new york times jumped the shark too?: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/business/22markets.html http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/business/22markets.html Almost every news organization has had the same headline today
- argv_empty 17y ago
  I'm not sure NYT had quite the same reputation for reliable market reporting. While it may have been better than papers for whom this is "business as usual," NYT didn't have as far to fall as WSJ did.
- noodle 17y ago
  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.
korch 17y ago
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.
- markpercival 17y ago
  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.
  - waterlesscloud 17y ago
    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.
    - matrix 17y ago
      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.
steveplace 17y ago
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 about how the president's comments caused the market to drop. This is rubbish. Short term noise in the market happens. We were due for a pullback and this, combined with Greek CDS spreads and China's rates, prompted some weakness. The same thing happened during the inauguration, how the market flew further south. And then the pundits came out and proclaimed how the new administration would be terrible for equities-- and then we rallied. A lot. And those pundits who thought there was some correlation between politics and markets disappeared. Same thing here. The WSJ has increased it's politicization of it's content, when it has been known for the best financial news source out there. It may sell more papers, but they are significantly compromising the intellectual integrity of the staff and the brand.
- hop 17y ago
  Ritholtz has an excellent blog, I don't know how he finds the time to write so much. Highly recommended.
  - steveplace 17y ago
    I highly recommend his book "Bailout Nation," the most comprehensive overview of our current situation. Data driven and very well written.
- mynameishere 17y ago
  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&chdv=1&chvs=maximized&chdeh=0&chdet=1264194000000&chddm=1955&chls=IntervalBasedLine&q=NYSE:JPM&ntsp=0 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&chdv=1&chvs=maximized&chdeh=0&chdet=1264183560000&chddm=101752&chls=IntervalBasedLine&cmpto=NYSE:UUP&cmptdms=0&q=NYSE:SPY&ntsp=0 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&chdv=1&chvs=maximized&chdeh=0&chdet=1264194000000&chddm=391&chls=IntervalBasedLine&cmpto=NYSE:UUP&cmptdms=0&q=NYSE:SPY&ntsp=0 http://www.google.com/finance?chdnp=1&chdd=1&chds=1&... [<-- jan 22 2010] This is not historical: http://www.google.com/finance?chdnp=1&chdd=1&chds=1&chdv=1&chvs=maximized&chdeh=0&chdet=1204923600000&chddm=100238&chls=IntervalBasedLine&cmpto=NYSE:UUP&cmptdms=0&q=NYSE:SPY&ntsp=0 http://www.google.com/finance?chdnp=1&chdd=1&chds=1&...
SamAtt 17y ago
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-200-on-obama-plan-to-crack-down-on-banks.html http://blogs.abcnews.com/theworldnewser/2010/01/dow-drops-20..., http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8473720.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8473720.stm)
- jonstokes 17y ago
  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.
  - SamAtt 17y ago
    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.
tjic 17y ago
The author basically retracts his point here: http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2010/01/wsj-another-view/ http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2010/01/wsj-another-view/
- rayval 17y ago
  No he doesn't. He provides nuance, as follows: <blockquote> This isn’t a politicization of the Journal, it is more accurately described as a tabloidization of it. .... I am willing to give the Marketplace and Money & Investing sections the benefit of the doubt. But it seems weird to me to say that I am now sequestering the OpEd pages AND much of the A section. Once the political motivations of the owner leave the Opinion pages, it is a slippery slope down towards yellow journalism. </blockquote>
- barrkel 17y ago
  I think "retract" would be an overstatement.
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
bitdiddle 17y ago
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.

81 points by tortilla 17y ago

tjic 17y ago

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".

me325r4534534 17y ago
you are an idiot, a bird brain. please kill yourself.
tjic 17y ago
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.
- tjic 17y ago
  Nice. Two calm comments of mine, both down voted to 0 or lower. ...and yet someone making no points and calling names (below) still has a positive score. You down voters ought to be ashamed of yourselves - this is a marketplace of IDEAS, and yet you're just lashing out. Very mature. Very much in the spirit of HN.
  - noodle 17y ago
    can you point out in the article, with quotes, where your ideas are validated? i read the article first, read your comment, and then re-read the article and nowhere do i see any support for your summary. the only thing i can imagine is that this article doesn't line up with your own personal belief system, and you're violently rejecting it.
  - KWD 17y ago
    Re-read your comment, and I don't think you can really classify it as 'calm'. It clearly shows your political motivation, the same as you accuse the author.
  - mquander 17y ago
    Your comments are not calm, they are flamebait; and your opinions don't appear to have any connection to the actual article, in which the author describes specific reasons why he thought the Journal's coverage was poor (e.g. their failure to distinguish between financial and commodity markets, their failure to mention China's announcement.)
- ajross 17y ago
  I think the downvotes have more to do with people not wanting to see baldly political rants. The article was about the Wall Street Journal. You replied with an off topic ad-hominem about the authors motivations and intelligence. Bad form.
  - waterlesscloud 17y ago
    Technically, the article is about the politics of the WSJ, and the poster responded with a comment on the author's politics. You can't talk about politics without talking about politics.
    - rayval 17y ago
      Technically, the article is about the quality of journalism in the WSJ (plus of course the impact that politics has had on that quality), and the poster responded with a comment on the author's politics and completely ignored the issue of content quality. You can't talk about journalism by talking only about politics.
- tortilla 17y ago
  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.
  - SamAtt 17y ago
    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/index.html 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.
    - tortilla 17y ago
      And here he's calling Obama a sellout or close to it: http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/12/did-obama-sellout-to-wall-street/ http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/12/did-obama-sellout-to-wa...
      - SamAtt 17y ago
        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.
        tortilla 17y ago
        Yeah, I see your point. I probably shouldn't have said, "He dislikes both sides" when I should have said, "He attacks/criticizes both sides." My intent was to show he's not some blind partisan hack. I'm not sure if he's a leftist either. Some people accused him of being a libertarian in the past.
- gjm11 17y ago
  I disagree because: 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.
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
KWD 17y ago
I think you need to re-read the article. Your 'general consensus' could be phrased better as 'general media consensus', in my opinion. The author's point was that you cannot clearly establish causation in the market, and that there could be numerous reasons for the drop and he presented several other potential causes, and that analysis of segments of the market did not really correspond to the Obama announcement as the main cause. I don't think he outright rejects that it may have had some impact. In general, what I take away from the article is that the tone of the Business section of the website used to be just 'business', and that you could expect clear analysis. He no longer feels that is the case, and as such, the WSJ is becoming more just another 'general media' outlet, and not as special as it once was.
steveplace 17y ago
But the market wasn't down because of Obama's bill.
jonknee 17y ago
Did you read the whole thing? The biggest losers were commodities, not banks. Many banks also just reported quarterly losses and signs of continued economic trouble. The "general consensus" is what it is because of sloppy reporting like the WSJ provided. 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. http://www.google.com/finance?catid=58211593 http://www.google.com/finance?catid=58211593

ellyagg 17y ago

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.

RyanMcGreal 17y ago
> 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.
- dschobel 17y ago
  That's my biggest criticism of the economist, that the content is not attributed to any author. 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.
  - absconditus 17y ago
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist#Tone_and_voice http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist#Tone_and_voice
- hop 17y ago
  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.
  - RyanMcGreal 17y ago
    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.

RyanMcGreal 17y ago

This judgment comes several years after the fact.

hop 17y ago
Its only been 2.5 years since he bought it. And it was awhile after that it started changing.
- mortenjorck 17y ago
  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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucky_duckies
  - dagw 17y ago
    But that was in an editorial op ed piece. Their op ed pieces have always been political, but they always used to do a good job to make sure the politics doesn't leak out from there.

utnick 17y ago

so I guess the new york times jumped the shark too?: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/business/22markets.html http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/business/22markets.html Almost every news organization has had the same headline today

argv_empty 17y ago
I'm not sure NYT had quite the same reputation for reliable market reporting. While it may have been better than papers for whom this is "business as usual," NYT didn't have as far to fall as WSJ did.
noodle 17y ago
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.

korch 17y ago

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.

markpercival 17y ago
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.
- waterlesscloud 17y ago
  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.
  - matrix 17y ago
    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.

steveplace 17y ago

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 about how the president's comments caused the market to drop. This is rubbish. Short term noise in the market happens. We were due for a pullback and this, combined with Greek CDS spreads and China's rates, prompted some weakness. The same thing happened during the inauguration, how the market flew further south. And then the pundits came out and proclaimed how the new administration would be terrible for equities-- and then we rallied. A lot. And those pundits who thought there was some correlation between politics and markets disappeared. Same thing here. The WSJ has increased it's politicization of it's content, when it has been known for the best financial news source out there. It may sell more papers, but they are significantly compromising the intellectual integrity of the staff and the brand.

hop 17y ago
Ritholtz has an excellent blog, I don't know how he finds the time to write so much. Highly recommended.
- steveplace 17y ago
  I highly recommend his book "Bailout Nation," the most comprehensive overview of our current situation. Data driven and very well written.
mynameishere 17y ago
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&chdv=1&chvs=maximized&chdeh=0&chdet=1264194000000&chddm=1955&chls=IntervalBasedLine&q=NYSE:JPM&ntsp=0 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&chdv=1&chvs=maximized&chdeh=0&chdet=1264183560000&chddm=101752&chls=IntervalBasedLine&cmpto=NYSE:UUP&cmptdms=0&q=NYSE:SPY&ntsp=0 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&chdv=1&chvs=maximized&chdeh=0&chdet=1264194000000&chddm=391&chls=IntervalBasedLine&cmpto=NYSE:UUP&cmptdms=0&q=NYSE:SPY&ntsp=0 http://www.google.com/finance?chdnp=1&chdd=1&chds=1&... [<-- jan 22 2010] This is not historical: http://www.google.com/finance?chdnp=1&chdd=1&chds=1&chdv=1&chvs=maximized&chdeh=0&chdet=1204923600000&chddm=100238&chls=IntervalBasedLine&cmpto=NYSE:UUP&cmptdms=0&q=NYSE:SPY&ntsp=0 http://www.google.com/finance?chdnp=1&chdd=1&chds=1&...

SamAtt 17y ago

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-200-on-obama-plan-to-crack-down-on-banks.html http://blogs.abcnews.com/theworldnewser/2010/01/dow-drops-20..., http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8473720.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8473720.stm)

jonstokes 17y ago
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.
- SamAtt 17y ago
  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.

tjic 17y ago

The author basically retracts his point here: http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2010/01/wsj-another-view/ http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2010/01/wsj-another-view/

rayval 17y ago
No he doesn't. He provides nuance, as follows: <blockquote> This isn’t a politicization of the Journal, it is more accurately described as a tabloidization of it. .... I am willing to give the Marketplace and Money & Investing sections the benefit of the doubt. But it seems weird to me to say that I am now sequestering the OpEd pages AND much of the A section. Once the political motivations of the owner leave the Opinion pages, it is a slippery slope down towards yellow journalism. </blockquote>
barrkel 17y ago
I think "retract" would be an overstatement.

deleted 17y ago

[deleted]

bitdiddle 17y ago

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.