3 ms·

Billionaire CIO isn't happy with how the Wall Street Journal (a famously business-friendly newspaper, as its name suggests) covered his company, rumbles ominous

Billionaire CIO isn't happy with how the Wall Street Journal (a famously business-friendly newspaper, as its name suggests) covered his company, rumbles ominously about curtailing free speech for journalists. That's about accurate, isn't it?

lefstathiou 10y ago
So what were your thoughts on the specific points raised by Dalio?
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
iaw 10y ago
To illustrate lefstathiou's question: Where the author says: "The problem is that people who are happy with their experience and respecting our rules are not allowed to speak with the media so you end up hearing disproportionately from disgruntled people." Do you agree or disagree with this assertion? I think it's reasonable to expect that employees seeking to speak with the press are not pleased with the work environment but to determine what that means wouldn't we need to know what % of employees speak to the press at Bridgewater relative to other financial firms? Where the author says: "We also offered to put Copeland in contact with three prominent organizational psychologists and researchers who" ... "had studied our culture in depth" ... "These researchers" ... "had access to anyone they wanted to speak with when they did their studies. Copeland and Hope" ... "chose not to speak with these experts." Do you think this sounds like a fair effort for honest reporting? Do you think the author is lying about such an easily verifiable statement or can you explain why the journalists chose not to speak to these individuals? There's more, but reading through the author's words it appears like he made an honest effort to represent the good and the bad at their company. Years ago, the WSJ was considered a pinnacle of financial reporting so when Rupert Murdoch acquired it there was a lot of concern about the potential for bias to creep in. I worked for a financial company that was the lead story in the New York Times financial section. I hold no affection for this company but, having familiarity with the circumstances they were discussing, it was clear they misrepresented the facts to make things look as bad as possible. A neutral/honest article isn't as sensational as one building a bogeyman. Is it possible that this billionaire CIO just has a loud enough voice to point out how inaccurate the reporting was? Any time I see a subject in the news I'm familiar with I see numerous inaccuracies and misrepresentations, have you had this experience? Do you think that phenomenon is limited only to your knowledge domain? Yes, the CIO has incentive to discount the article, but do you see how the journalists may have incentive to undermine the company?
- DashRattlesnake 10y ago
  Honestly, I think the journalists have a reasonable case to not engage too closely with stage-managed information that their subjects present them, and instead seek out their own sources. I'd be pretty skeptical of someone who says stuff like: > We have about 1,500 people who work at Bridgewater, most of whom love it rather than feel oppressed, so the picture they gleaned from these dozen people was clearly not representative [emphasis mine]. The CEO's blog post read to me like someone who is upset that their biases an beliefs (which they view as "accurate") weren't reflected in the reporting, but it's not "distortion" to fail to report your own distortions.
- maldusiecle 10y ago
  I think most of the first part of the article is pretty dishonest. The kinds of inaccuracies that lead people to distrust media in general are very different from the kinds of "distortions" he complains about: that the journalist found his own sources, rather than relying on those cherrypicked by the company; that the journalist's depiction mentioned negative facts (which he doesn't dispute!) but didn't also mention the positive ones which he likes better. The WSJ article is easy to find, and I think it's pretty apparent on reading it how weak these complaints are. These are nothing more than the petulant complaints of a powerful man who wishes people not be allowed to criticize him. I don't see numerous inaccuracies or misrepresentations in the news articles I read that discuss areas I'm familiar with; when I do see such inaccuracies, I tend to avoid those news sources in the future. I would venture that if you're seeing those kinds of distortions all the time, you should seek out better news sources. But if you think a writer is doing a bad job because he finds his own sources rather than relying only on those handpicked by organization he's reporting on, I think the word for what you're looking for is a different one than "journalism."
kafkaesq 10y ago
rumbles ominously about curtailing free speech for journalists. Could you point out where he says this, please? (Dalio's rant is quite long, and I didn't see where this jumped out at first skim).
- maldusiecle 10y ago
  The quote I was thinking of was, "...if the industry doesn't fix its problems, other forces will cause the pendulum to swing in the opposite direction, which will lead to some of the cherished press freedoms being lost."
  - kafkaesq 10y ago
    Fascinating. That's a very precious quote, indeed. Thanks.

lefstathiou 10y ago

So what were your thoughts on the specific points raised by Dalio?

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

iaw 10y ago

To illustrate lefstathiou's question: Where the author says: "The problem is that people who are happy with their experience and respecting our rules are not allowed to speak with the media so you end up hearing disproportionately from disgruntled people." Do you agree or disagree with this assertion? I think it's reasonable to expect that employees seeking to speak with the press are not pleased with the work environment but to determine what that means wouldn't we need to know what % of employees speak to the press at Bridgewater relative to other financial firms? Where the author says: "We also offered to put Copeland in contact with three prominent organizational psychologists and researchers who" ... "had studied our culture in depth" ... "These researchers" ... "had access to anyone they wanted to speak with when they did their studies. Copeland and Hope" ... "chose not to speak with these experts." Do you think this sounds like a fair effort for honest reporting? Do you think the author is lying about such an easily verifiable statement or can you explain why the journalists chose not to speak to these individuals? There's more, but reading through the author's words it appears like he made an honest effort to represent the good and the bad at their company. Years ago, the WSJ was considered a pinnacle of financial reporting so when Rupert Murdoch acquired it there was a lot of concern about the potential for bias to creep in. I worked for a financial company that was the lead story in the New York Times financial section. I hold no affection for this company but, having familiarity with the circumstances they were discussing, it was clear they misrepresented the facts to make things look as bad as possible. A neutral/honest article isn't as sensational as one building a bogeyman. Is it possible that this billionaire CIO just has a loud enough voice to point out how inaccurate the reporting was? Any time I see a subject in the news I'm familiar with I see numerous inaccuracies and misrepresentations, have you had this experience? Do you think that phenomenon is limited only to your knowledge domain? Yes, the CIO has incentive to discount the article, but do you see how the journalists may have incentive to undermine the company?

DashRattlesnake 10y ago
Honestly, I think the journalists have a reasonable case to not engage too closely with stage-managed information that their subjects present them, and instead seek out their own sources. I'd be pretty skeptical of someone who says stuff like: > We have about 1,500 people who work at Bridgewater, most of whom love it rather than feel oppressed, so the picture they gleaned from these dozen people was clearly not representative [emphasis mine]. The CEO's blog post read to me like someone who is upset that their biases an beliefs (which they view as "accurate") weren't reflected in the reporting, but it's not "distortion" to fail to report your own distortions.
maldusiecle 10y ago
I think most of the first part of the article is pretty dishonest. The kinds of inaccuracies that lead people to distrust media in general are very different from the kinds of "distortions" he complains about: that the journalist found his own sources, rather than relying on those cherrypicked by the company; that the journalist's depiction mentioned negative facts (which he doesn't dispute!) but didn't also mention the positive ones which he likes better. The WSJ article is easy to find, and I think it's pretty apparent on reading it how weak these complaints are. These are nothing more than the petulant complaints of a powerful man who wishes people not be allowed to criticize him. I don't see numerous inaccuracies or misrepresentations in the news articles I read that discuss areas I'm familiar with; when I do see such inaccuracies, I tend to avoid those news sources in the future. I would venture that if you're seeing those kinds of distortions all the time, you should seek out better news sources. But if you think a writer is doing a bad job because he finds his own sources rather than relying only on those handpicked by organization he's reporting on, I think the word for what you're looking for is a different one than "journalism."

kafkaesq 10y ago

rumbles ominously about curtailing free speech for journalists. Could you point out where he says this, please? (Dalio's rant is quite long, and I didn't see where this jumped out at first skim).

maldusiecle 10y ago
The quote I was thinking of was, "...if the industry doesn't fix its problems, other forces will cause the pendulum to swing in the opposite direction, which will lead to some of the cherished press freedoms being lost."
- kafkaesq 10y ago
  Fascinating. That's a very precious quote, indeed. Thanks.