Another Amusing Media Interlude
Yet another amusing media interlude. Zero Hedge appreciates the gossip pages' attempt at profiling our zany cause. Even if, as the case may be, these particular gossip pages are in fact owned by the very same Establishment that our "conspiratorial" disclosures attempt to represent for the motivated and deeply embedded wealth redistribution enterprise it is.
And while Mr. Hagan's reporting could have been better served with some more directed fact checking and appropriate disclosures (least among them being the representation that our "off the record" solicited information has helped additional relevant articles, namely, and ironically, this very one) it does highlight a critical point: when discussing financial matters, the "financial media" represented by "Establishment" type reporters and bloggers, just like the financial "regulators", is woefully behind the curve. For Wall Street (a place where the smartest come to roost but not for the sake of being smart, but merely to outthink other smart people in the perpetual quest in gaining a infinitesimal profit generating arbitrage), the race to the top means simply a race to find a new loophole, obfuscation, or a new form of informational "asymmetry." Proper and timely interception of these misguided Wall Street interests by the old media system has failed, pure and simple. While one can lay the blame on Wall Street, that would be short sighted - Wall Street only cares about one thing: the bottom line, it cares not how it gets there. One can also lay the blame on politicians, yet that would also be naive: Washington's purpose in preserving the interests of its electorate only goes as far as the lobby funding from Wall Street will allow it. Unfortunately, a key culprit in the recent near-collapse of the financial system (and by implication, of the Western way of life) is the entire old-school media itself, populated by financially uneducated journalists, to whom concepts like CDS, TALF and TLGP are "dense market analysis with technical charts and graphs" until someone explains their relevance and relationship to other simpler, more simple and mundane concepts. Alas, these are people who prefer to create biopic sketches, and create profiles consisting of attempts to attribute motivations based on fallback arrays filled with incomplete and, at times wrong, "factual" representations. After all, that's what the traditional media world has always done well, and, one could add, is the only thing it has done well. How this has directly impacted traditional media's bottom line is all too well known: not only are newspapers experiencing the worst financial crisis in history, with subscription and ad revenues plummeting, but soon the entire newspaper industry will be pitched by the administration as the next Too Big To Fail industry. How much of this is a reactionary campaign by traditional media users who are tired of being lied to by conflicted disseminators of misinformation time will tell, as well as tomorrow's carnage among the media landscape. Who survives will be just as revealing as who goes under.
As to Zero Hedge, our model is simple: we provide opinions substantiated by facts. Interpretations will vary: which is why the distributed, peer-evaluated model of content aggregation is here to stay: we, as well as the entire blogosphere, grow upon the feedback of our readers and other blogs. As an example, had the rating agencies approached their analytical product with the same openness, the credit bubble would have been diffused much, much sooner. Our "Borg collective" as penned by one Felix Salmon, consists of some of the most deeply embedded insiders, and not just on Wall Street. Our informational axes would make the traditional media "sourcing" model green with envy. And our desire to bring any bit of information we uncover for general public consumption, is the stuff the Established media model's nightmares are made of. It is no secret why that particular model is in its death throes. We do wish it all the best, although if Darwinian theory is correct, our wishes will have no impact on the final outcome.
We expect and welcome more such "interludes" - after all, as pointed out, they are the one thing traditional media is still good at. In the meantime, we will continue doing what we are good at, which is putting the dots together for the benefit of ever-increasing readers in the U.S. and worldwide, as well as for those in the old-school media regime who have taken enough Econ 101 to follow our narratives. We are unfazed by amusing labels trumpeting "conspiracies" and "disaggregation," as well as recurring other attempts to create strawmen for ad hominem attacks. After all, the conclusion is startlingly simple: silencing us would be best served by ignoring us.
That has yet to happen.