Someone made a statement of opinion without supporting evidence. You followed that up with another statement of opinion without supporting evidence. As a result

Someone made a statement of opinion without supporting evidence. You followed that up with another statement of opinion without supporting evidence. As a result no consensus was reached and this entire exchange went no where. Why do you think it was an arrogant and toxic statement? Do you disagree that financial journalism is better? Do you think finance journalism itself is toxic? Do you have evidence that a belief such as "finance jounalism is generally more excellent than others" is toxic in some way?