3 ms·
> As for The Wall Street Journal’s claim that I’m refusing to let go of control of Bridgewater, I can assure you that that is not true and that if it was true,
by smacktoward 7y ago
> As for The Wall Street Journal’s claim that I’m refusing to let go of control of Bridgewater, I can assure you that that is not true and that if it was true, I’d tell you it was true.
So your counter-argument to an article in a publication that has won 37 Pulitzer prizes for the quality of its news reporting is: “they’re wrong, trust me.”
- forgingahead 7y agoHe's the subject of the article? If he himself has no right of reply, then who does?
- rumanator 7y agoI guess the point is that his reply simply is not convincing at all, because it amounts to asking for blind trust in the absence of proof.
- forgingahead 7y agoWhat is the threshold for "convincing" though? If I write an article about you alleging or directly concluding something unpleasant, ask you for comment, include your denials, but publish anyway slanting the entire article to my narrative, and you publish your own take on the matter, are you automatically not convincing? "But the people have a right to know, that rumanator did XYZ!!". This is the entire problem -- there is nothing that will apparently get a media org to retract or back down, because for them, publishing something, anything means revenue and not publishing means going out of business, facts be damned. Media: "Hey, we're writing an article about this concerning you -- any comment?" Subject: "It's completely untrue." Media: "Ooh, you must be hiding something, we're publishing anyway." Subject: <Publishes online rebuttal> Online commentariat: "He's not convincing!! The media is under attack and our democracy is dying in the darkness!"
- sunstone 7y agoSure but have they won anything under their new ownership?