An Open Letter To The Financial Media

1-2's picture

By 1-2 and Marla Singer

It can hardly have escaped your notice that a battle of epic proportions, simmering at the fringes for months, was this very week finally joined.  Pursuing what can only be termed a "mobius strip news cycle" strategy, certain "financial news" programs have taken to throwing those pesky "parasitic" bloggers to the proverbial wolves at every opportunity. Given the tenor of discourse and the ad hominem pursuits of our mainstream colleagues, conveniently beamed right into our offices from the from the otherwise warming glow of our LCD panels, we at Zero IntelligenceHedge welcome the opportunity to contribute to the discussion- not, mind you, because our feelings are hurt (you can’t hurt something that doesn’t bleed), but rather because our appraisal of these attacks puts them on par with the baseless ramblings of the Tourette's-afflicted homeless guy who loiters about outside our offices.  Pure stream of consciousness, laden with panic and paranoia, and characterized more by shrill tone and volume than a respectable signal to noise ratio.  Desperate, and desperately ill.

Not so long ago, the dual-class share structure of newspapers was a bedrock principle of media corporate governance.  Insulating- the argument went- the paper from the whims of the public was necessary to the independence of the Fourth Estate (can't have pesky shareholders dictating sacrosanct editorial policy, after all).  Those days are over.  This change is neither the result of some maverick revolt in corporate governance, nor is it the consequence of a dramatic awakening by institutional holders (who would require close-order thermonuclear detonations to rouse).  It is merely the sad result of the most abject and base squandering of a valuable estate since the Manor of Marr fell into the bloodsucking clutches of early 19th century English probate.

The Fourth Estate has spent and leveraged its reputation capital in keeping with the finest traditions of 21st century investment banking.  As a consequence, these age-old institutions are quickly for the way of their banking parallels: Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers. We are actually quite fortunate to witness the historic dying gasps of old media, painfully resisting the very same creative destruction they utilized to, temporarily, supplant town criers, printed pulp, Valueline and teletype as primary sources of daily news-flow. When the future of no lesser institution than the New York Times seems
uncertain, and Tribune's only real valued asset is a baseball team (and
the Chicago Cubs at that) it becomes difficult to go long old media
brands. However, like all dying industries, instead of changing their own ways they choose to attack the new guardians of the estate: New Media.  This is not to say "new media" is perfect, far from it.  It does, however, have the virtue of being effective.  Too effective, in fact, if you ask certain networks.  Is it any wonder that we are now in the midst of new "circulation wars" or that the same "yellow journalism" has once again become en vogue?  Today, however, we call them "click through rates" and "hard hitting programming."  ("Hard hitting" referring primarily to the effect the carefully selected anchors have on viewers of the opposite sex- and so it has been since Arthur "The Desert Fox" Kent went to the sandbox for CNN.)

It is easy to point fingers, to try to shift blame for what is, at the core, a lack of adaptability.  Viewed from a distance, that mainstream media, burdened by its wholesale dependence on personality, would be threatened by anonymous speech is totally unsurprising.  How old exactly is the phrase "media personality" after all?  How alien must it be to veterans of the business that media without the personality might appeal?  How difficult it must be to fight in a ring with someone who doesn't play by the rules, and when there is no ammunition for the only weapons available, the personal attack and the dirt-digger?  If the primary complaint is that we have yet to provide a photocopy of our driver's licenses, that is concerning.  With this in mind, Ladies and Gentlemen of the media, we would like to make a few points:

1.  Anonymous speech is not a crime.

You may or may not be aware that there is a long tradition of anonymous speech in the United States.  It did not begin here.  Not by a long shot.  In 509 BC Publius Valerius Publicola and colleagues transformed, with the help of extensive pamphleteering, the monarchy that ruled Rome into a republic by deposing and banishing Lucius Tarquinius Superbus.  (What a great anchor name that would make!)  The result was twofold.  First, the invention of the Roman title of "Consul."  Second, the beginning of the Roman Republic.  You may recognize "Publius Valerius Publicola," as the pen name later taken by Alexander Hamilton, John Jay and James Madison in the form of "Publius," the pen name over which they wrote the Federalist Papers.  We shouldn't have to point out the import of these events.  If they escape you, may we recommend the World Book’s new age form, Wikipedia.  (Britannica is, as one might expect, as dead as parchment.)  All this is a long way of pointing out exactly what you are indicting when you belittle pseudonymity.  (As an aside, in sophisticated discourse, it pays to know the difference between anonymity and pseudonymity.)

Confusing identity with reputation is a common error made by the enemies of anonymity.  Do we respect the anchor of a well-known financial news channel (roll with us for a minute here) because of his Italian last name?  Or do we respect him because of his reputation for hard-hitting financial journalism?  Surely some embarrassing moments about his past might cause some snickering.  But this is identity, not reputation- certainly not professional reputation.  Is it relevant to the content of the news that another anchor on said channel got a wee-bit amorous in a taxi with a woman (or two) not his wife?  (Or a woman someone else's wife?)  Only insofar as that anchor makes his career about identity, that is personality, instead of reputation.  If he does that, he is fair game for all the snark and gossip he whorishly solicits.

Since we write under pseudonyms we have but one currency: the quality of our content, and the reputation built since we started writing it.  Readers will decide for themselves whether our content is informative and worthy of their time.  There is no cloak of personality in which we may hide.  Our professional "brands" are just as vulnerable as any reporter on any network.  Unless you are a Luddite of some kind we are easy to contact.  Contrast this with our experience with you. We have discovered, as it happens, that you never return our e-mails.  It is apparently beneath you.  Furthermore, owing to our lack of a highly leveraged, publicly held parent, we lack the traditional gatekeepers many personalities use to screen potential "bearers of bad newscorrection." Are there some bloggers out there who seek no more than to rake muck?  Of course, but the same can be said for any circle of journalists you may care to name.  Our writing is all we have (personality does not interest us) and so we strive to keep it accurate, informative, and interesting- just as any journalist would.  Does that mean we consider ourselves journalists?  What's in a name? Many of us are closer to op-ed writers.  Many of us are purely editors.  Some of us even fancy ourselves philosophers.  But, may i remind you, editorials are generally written by a “board” even more anonymous than ourselves- subject to no army of instant-gratification grammar Nazis, and rarely lowering themselves to so much as issue a correction.  Think anonymous writers are all scum?  Read the Economist some time.

As to the personal habits of various mainstream reporters, we are totally uninterested in these details.  They are only relevant where they expose the hypocritical tenor of someone who chides anonymous authors to reveal themselves and then hides behind a "no comment" when confronted with his or her own personality defects.

Attacking anonymity is the nexus of this misdirection error and an over-reliance on the media value of personality over content.  This must end.  We've said so long before mainstream media attacked us, not least in our manifesto.  Content is what is important here, and none of you seem to understand that.  You fall back to personality because it is your last and only hope.  We don't care to play along, thank you.  Why?

2.  Your unveiling motives are less than pure.

Demanding the unveiling of anonymous authors is often a pretense for opening the door to personal attacks.  We recognize that conflict makes for good prime time television.  We understand that producers seek to capitalize on this and that, for reasons obvious even to a first year psychology student, juicy personal attacks draw ratings.  Zero Hedge enjoyed a bit of personal experience in this vein when exposed to the high-pressure "are we doing this or what" come-on of a certain financial network producer.  We declined, prompting "the talent"'s attempt to savage us on-air (and our largest spike of web traffic theretofore).  Interesting as it will be in 20 years for sociologists to study, this is not journalism.

Ladies and Gentlemen, one-line zingers and contrived time limits designed to impale your hapless guests do not constitute "constructive conflict" worthy of the your interest in the Fourth Estate, which, incidentally, you do not own, but rather hold in trust on behalf of the citizenry.  Want to see real, purposeful conflict on television?  Try pulling some 5 or 10 year old archive tapes on the McLaughlin Group, or 1980s vintage runs of the British quiz show "Mastermind."  The latter was invented by Bill Wright, a former gunner in the Royal Air Force who based the premise of the show on his experience resisting interrogation by the Gestapo.  Do we need to point out that you are out of your league?  That was conflict television.  Mastermind itself is even purely entertainment (the British love to watch their fellows squirm).  Your efforts pale in comparison and, as it happens, your urge to entertain is entirely misplaced when mixed with "financial journalism."  We suggest you reflect seriously on this before you put the deci-split-screen up for the [n]th time.  Actually, we take it back.  Nothing better characterizes everything that is wrong with your approach than the deci-split-screen.  As you were.

In case it was not already clear, let us just be plain: we are not interested in your ad hominem drama.  We are not so in love with fame that we are prepared to subject ourselves to that kind of artifice in exchange for it.  We understand this worldview puzzles and frightens you, and that we must seem an opponent no easier to grasp than quantum mechanics (well we have a former physicist among us, so maybe that's a bad example).  Look back at real drama and notice that it never needed to be invented in the newsrooms of 1972.  Demanding our unveiling is an excuse.  An excuse wielded by those who have no content of value to offer.  Just to be clear: this means you.

3.  The era of personality-centric media needs to end- quickly, and (hopefully) painfully.

The fact that you thrive on the momentum of personality-centric reporting does not mean that we do, or that it is the right kind of reporting.  Your shrill cries of "coward" in the face of anonymous or pseudonymous authors somehow implies that narcissism is equivalent to bravery.  This is, in your case, self-serving.  And, frankly, we beg to differ with respect to your basic premise.

On the contrary, we think narcissism is cowardice.  Personality-centric reporting is the last resort of those who have no valuable content to offer on fading networks with waning delivery channels.  Edutainment is a mutation designed (poorly) to forestall total decline.  None of you seem to understand that the issue is content, not comment.

There was a time when the pinnacle of global discourse came from the newsroom at CBS.  When no self-respecting citizen who considered themselves informed would go long without the evening news.  What do we have now?  Can we not all recognize what a severe devolution this is?

When we have Dan Rather's 77 year old face on HDTV, and this program is called "Dan Rather Reports," (the focus on the personality of the host is almost daunting) can we not agree that something is wrong?  It is not that Dan Rather's majestic countenance is not comely (well, not only that) but that any countenance at all is a major portion of the visual offering.  People, HDTV is for football, not news.  If you have any doubt that this is so, consider how many HDTV reports of any weight emerged from Iran this month, or last.  Zero.  None.  Of course.  This was easily the most important foreign policy story of the year.  Where did the scoops come from?  Twitter and YouTube.  We don't claim Twitter and YouTube are the next revolution.  We think Twitter and YouTube are sort of lame.  It's just that they are somewhat less lame than your medium.  Stepping back for a moment, that is really quite sad.

Video killed the newsroom.  Stop trying to jump-start the corpse.

4.  You can't fight a dead model.  (They don't respond to the sleeper hold at all, and getting caught with one while trying is bad news.)

It is not our fault or our problem that your business model is dead.  We didn't kill it.  You did.  You killed it when you did a 16 minute expose on the business of porn.  You killed it when you stacked the anchor desk with stacked anchors.  You killed it when you started writing books for six-figure advances, and schmoozing for access to fill those books with juicy tidbits about (and dialogue from) senior executives on Wall Street.  You killed it when you hired an audio producer to dub in dramatic music in times of financial crisis.  You killed it when you started paying someone six-figures to create eye-catching graphics.  Every dollar you spent on this nonsense was a dollar you took away from the newsroom.  Is it any wonder that reporters at the Wall Street Journal are paid shameful trifles while "the talent" (for the unwashed, we mean the TV anchors) rival investment banking paychecks?

5.  Take it from us.  It's time to punt.

When you've gotten to the point where you are attacking online media in order to boost viewing of embedded video clips of your content, inventing fights with new media to boost ratings, when you are boosting online ad revenue this way, might not it be the time to just cut out the expensive cost center middlemen (we are looking at you- in the eye- stacked anchors) and move to online distribution entirely?  We've been watching quite carefully and we haven't seen a story above the 5th grade level out of you in over a year.  (Except, perhaps for the piece on porn, that was at 7th grade level for sure.)  Instead it seems clear that you have been reduced to calling us "morons" and "dickweeds."  (We can say "fuckhead" in our medium, how about you?)  We are sorry to tell you that the last decent movie John Hughes wrote was Uncle Buck.  (Some people cite Home Alone, which came out a year later, but we think this nonsense.)  That is to say, personal attacks, one-liners, snarky comedy and "zingers" were funnier in 1989.  It is now 2009, and no one is going to play "Don't You Forget About Me" while you walk away through the parking lot after work.  (That is unless your producer hangs speakers out the window.)  If you want to drop a zinger here and there, better make sure it is bracketed on both sides with some real content.  Stick to parody and satire.  Name calling only works for a while.

6.  Get out of the cycle of co-personality-dependence.

When your biggest ratings and embedded hit counts come from fights between the various gargantuan egos on your anchor desk it should tell you two things.  First, that your have become addicted to on-air sideshows.  Second, that you have hauled your audience down with you into the blackness of personality-dependence addiction.  They are so starved for something real that they cannot comprehend that there might be something better than watching someone scream and push buttons to produce canned sound effects, or call a fellow anchor an intellectual lightweight.  Of course, when you run out of material for staged, behind-the-scenes drama, we are the next easiest target.  We are shocked.  May we recommend something novel?  Investigate something other than your co-anchor.  How about fraud?  Groundbreaking, we know.

All our criticism aside for a moment, we recognize that in many ways it is not your fault.  A drowning institution grasps at anything that floats.  If we are discouraged by anything it is your inability to just swim on your own.  Perhaps it has been so long that you've forgotten how.  That's easy to fix.  Kick your legs.  Breathe.  Do a lap.  Trust us.  They get easier.  Meanwhile, we'll keep researching and writing.  See you for couple's swim!

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Anonymous's picture

This post constitutes the best flaying since the centurion took the cat-o'-nine-tails to Jesus in "Passion of the Christ."

waterdog's picture

Nice work Marla, dump 1 & 2

Anonymous's picture

Nice article 1-2 and Marla. Thanks for taking the time. It must have been a labor of love. Only the truth can set us free. Let's keep looking.

AR's picture

One Word:  IMPRESSIVE !!!

Anonymous's picture

Truth seekers are often described as the charlatans of conspiracy. The Grand Wizards of Institutional Deceit use this definition to broadly undermine and marginalize those who disagree with the accepted dictum of power and big money.

Whether it's politics or business, there has always been a soft underbelly of deceit. Some of it is window dressing and narrow institutional promotion. But some of it is destructive to the people and its treasured expectations of honesty and transparency in ALL dealings with OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY.

There hasn't been a time in 8 decades when the public's trust in government and institutional candor has been lower than it is today. That status has been well earned .

ZH can expect more criticism and vague marginalization. So it is for the truthseekers......goes with the territory.

All ZHers should wear their badge of openess proudly and never give quarter to those who prefer operating in the destructive world of darkness and deceit.

putbuyer's picture

And now they're trying to take my life away
Forever young I cannot stay
On every corner, I can see them there
They don't know my name, they don't know my kind
They're after you with their promises
They're after you to sign your life away

                                                  The Alarm

I was glued to every word. Thanks Marla

At 1:26 it speaks volumes.

percolator's picture

An absolutely great letter Marla.

Whizbang's picture

Someone may have pointed this out already, but maybe run the editing comb through this one more time. I'd hate to see one of these schlubs ignoring such a well written piece because of a couple of tense errors.

Anonymous's picture

"Furthermore, Zero Intelligence is not an investment advisor, nor does it promote any securities. If we did, we would disclose it."

Marla Singer's picture

Whatever it is you are worried we are long, we are long it.  In size.  (Also, I think you missed the play on words there.  "Disclosing" that you promote a stock is rather redundant, no?)

Anonymous's picture

I laughed, I cried. That was the best piece of writing I've seen in years.

Anonymous's picture

who cares.....tell me where I can find the porn piece :)

Ruth's picture

I stopped watching MSM years ago, probably the same time I got sick of working for 'just a number' 'politically correct aka corrupt TBTF/TCTF' banksters in '95.  And I am sorry to say, I even see PBS too connected and too watered down now, although I enjoy it much much more.   Maybe PBS always was connected, I just did not feel the hypocrisy so much IN MY FACE as with MSM.  Excellent piece and I will be passing this along to every person I know.  Thank You!   

Anonymous's picture

MSM can entertain us. But when they profess to give us financial advice that is designed to get us to invest in bad stocks or at the wrong time to keep sponsors happy - it is virtally a ponzi scheme that they are promoting.

Anonymous's picture

I love this blog. In fact, I don't think I have missed a post in three months. I find that it covers some of the "insider" topics that CNBC and other "financial" sources fail to cover.

Anonymous's picture

by Dan Duncan (who's account awaits approval)

Zero Hedge has a certain "Little Rascals" quality to it. It's like you guys are up in your little tree house, writing "Manifestos" congratulating yourselves on the last little escapade.

And what is up with this defense of anonymity? It's so petulant. Here's Marla with Power Point Number 1: "Anonymous speech is not a crime." Are you kidding me? It's like I'm reading the rantings in the diary of a 12 year old. What's next Marla...

"Nuh uh."
"Yuh huh"
"I know you are but what am I?"

It truly is a black and white world you live in, when putting one's name next to one's work is... BAM! Narcissism. [Speaking of me a Financial Blogger and you're showing me a text book case of narcissism...straight down to the little Echoes that reside in the chamber of the comment bin.]

Thought Experiment: What if Tyler is really Dick Cheney, and its identity is revealed...what happens next? Does the Zero Hedge community rally behind the former V.P., showing their support by purchasing a bunch of groovy new "Zero Cheney" T-shirts....or....does the community go en masse to local fire departments, asking to have the filmy slime fire hosed off their bodies? [Yeah, yeah, I know it's not particularly relevant...but it is telling nonetheless. Content is content after who cares who writes it!]

And I get the whole thing about Old Media being a dead business model...but what, exactly is the business model of New Media? Is it taken straight from George Strait, "And just give(n) it away..."?

Are donations and cheap Adsense revenue from going to be enough to keep Our Gang of Little Rascals satisfied after two years of writing at this pace? Read the bloggers who've been around for the past couple of years: Most of them are burned out. The only ones with any staying power are the Krugman/Delong types who write 2 or 3 sentences a day. And the others...hell most of them are simply Cut-N-Pasters...or they still slog away in order to leverage a book deal.

Since we're all into fictional characters how about this as a depiction of Zero Hedge's little spat with CNBC:

Marla, dons her black leather jacket and channels her inner Arthur Fonzirelli, while water skiing behind a boat driven by Tyler who's pretending to be Pinky Tuscadero....and in the wake is a large dorsal fin and Marla Jumps!

And on cue, the Zero Hedge Community, like the players in a low rent version of Westside Story conducted in a warehouse with too much echo---sings the refrain of:

"Gasbag Gasparino. CNBC Sucks!"

Freaking Lame...

Veteran's picture

You're right.  They should quit now because two years from now they might be burned out. 


PS  TD, if you're Dick Cheney I'm going to punch you so hard when you wake up your clothes are going to be out of style


PPS  Marla, I'll be the Alfalfa to your Delilah anytime

coop's picture

Hmmm? If Tyler were Dick Cheney ......... Note to self: Don't go hunting with Tyler.

Dan -

Please don't bring up the issue of "cut and paste". I'm wondering how many people who have consented to "interviews" on the business channels, shook their head in wonderment after seeing the finished result and saying to themselves "That sounded stupid. Did I really say that?"

It would be like going into a lion's cage holding a big porthouse steak as a weapon. 

Did Washington immediately face off the British on the battlefield when he was totally outgunned? No. He sniped at them from well-hidden positions in the trees until he built up a formidable army.  Eventually the British gave up because they didn't know how to win against an enemy that didn't fight by their rules.

The first battle has been won. The enemy is out of the bars (er... barracks) and on to the field to engage the militia.




Marla Singer's picture

So, just to be clear.  Your account was created a whole 25 minutes ago.  I've approved it.  Not sure what the point of your "who's account awaits approval" was except perhaps to imply (incorrectly) that we are somehow censoring you.  The rest of your reply seems to follow a similar tone.  That's sort of unfortunate.  Anyhow, welcome aboard!

Marla Singer's picture

Hey Dan!

Email me your account name and I'll see what happened to your reg.  (I bet you used yahoo, didn't you!  Probably sitting in my spam inbox).

In future, drop me an email if you have technical problems.

Anonymous's picture

I look at this and feel very sad I never went to school. I bet it says a bunch of intelligent, honest fuck-you's to the asshats on TV who think everyone is like me.

Wish me luck; I have to get through CAPTCHA now.

-273's picture

People are starting to see the media hologram for what it is.

Bob Dobbs's picture

There is only one thing you can do with the Dead, listen to them.

par4's picture

Hear, Hear, very well said.

Anonymous's picture

One of the difference's between ZH and the nbc'c is ZH doesn't have to pay for accolades!

kurt_cagle's picture

I suspect that, ten years from now, when they are compiling the fall of Big Media and the rise of Media, that this particular post will be required reading.

This is one of the most cogent, hard-hitting pieces of pure journalistic brilliance that I've ever had the privilege of reading in any medium. Thanks for writing it.

coop's picture

Wow!  Made me start reading another set of essays again  by anonymous authors.

The "Federalist Papers". 

Nah! What did they ever accomplish?

Look out. Somethings' happening in America-- and I'm liking it.

Anonymous's picture

Newspapers and TV are part of the entertainment industry - their product is the attention of their audience. The few genuine journalists - the likes of Fisk, Hersh, Taibbi and Morgenstern - are far better suited to new media and get more distribution in that space than they do in their publications of origin. (Taibbi's latest Goldman piece got viewed more times than were sold copies of Rolling Stone).

As for pseudonymity - I am somewhat conflicted. Obviously it is entirely necessary if you're doing something subversive (e.g., participating in assassination markets) but for my only-mildly-subversive blatherings I always append my real name, or a means by which it can be found.

I think it's best to partition into at least two separate entities - "Citizen X" who goes about his business and only occasionally tilts at TPTB, and "RadicalY" who contributes directly to trying to kill off the parasitic subspecies that lives by extortion from the polity. This latter activity requires pseudonymity since it is to be achieved by killing enough of their Sardaukar - the black-suited child-killers who will shoot their fellow man just because there's a silly law against drugs, for example - to provide a significant disincentive for the other Sardaukar to continue in their role.

Degrade the operational effectiveness of the state's armed drone-thugs, and the parasites who live in palaces will have no means of continuing their extortion. As Jim Bell suggested in "Assassination Politics" - a piece that attracted the lidded gaze of the parasite class, and Bell has been in prison since 1996 despite never having harmed anybody or stolen anything.

OK... the above is a sample of what you can write from your own IP under your own name: so long as your life is properly partitioned, there will be absolutely no provable link between CitizenX and RadicalY, and if the State sends its goons to look at your 'puter, they will leave thinking you were just blowing smoke (I hate that term since I'm a non-smoker). RadicalY runs off an encrypted USB key and everything he does is encrypted before it enters the internets tubes.



(ZH/ZI ID still not processed, sadly)

Anonymous's picture

I wouldn't worry too much about writing your opinion on anything. You can't get in trouble for that. Announcing intent to do something bad might be asking for a visit, but hey, I hear they are friendly.

If you want to drive them crazy, just type stuff like "Flea bomb the white house at the end of the street."

(Hi guys!)

Marla Singer's picture



Thanks for registering.  Email me (marla @ zero hedge . com) and I will see what happened with your reg.  :)

Anonymous's picture

Who has the dirt on this CNBC anchor and a taxi cab trist? What's the story, dying to know...

poydras's picture

The reality is that many of us are now receiving real insight from some key blogs / websites.  Sites such as CR and Naked Cap. kept me sane in 2007 when it was convincing that the jig was up.  The sad truth, MSM, is that many of us now FIRST look beyond your reporting in search of what is really occurring.  Most seem trained to listen to whoever Washington / Wall Street puts up despite a record suggesting incompetence and/or crime.  How long this lasts remains to be seen.


Perhaps this era will be referred to the age of BS where the pitch, the scripted persona, the club backing forms the basis for leadership.  We all are ultimately responsible for pissing away the benefits provided by those that preceded us.  With good fortune, we will recognize the errors in our way and go back to true substance and substance of character.

Anonymous's picture

word up

Happy Days's picture

Excellent letter. We can hope that "they" take the time to read same.

Although I have my doubts as their minds are small. A waste of human flesh. I stopped

listening to the news and reading newspapers back around 1975. I

felt it was garbage then and it just continues to get more worthless.

All I ever wanted was facts...not their opinions. It's just a show. Useless

"breathers" in that camp, I feel. Waste of my time. I might add that

with regard to trading, my experience over the years has been to

"fade" whatever they have to say. Even back then, one learned that

"they" are not out to help you....but to fleece you. Are not the anchors

nothing more than "prostitutes" for the back office content. They get paid to lie...some may not

realize they are lying, but others do know. What kind of moral

character is that? Yes, they are dying. They did it to themselves. Good!!! This

country would probably be a better place without them. Have a great weekend everyone!!

Anonymous's picture

"This problem is intended to determine if you are a machine- or not sufficiently intelligent (or determined) to participate at Zero Hedge."

Wooooooo Hooooooooo! I made it. The only problem is that if I made it, then so did the rest of you. That's scary. I'm leaving as I will never join a group that would have me as a member.

Anonymous's picture

I doubt half of you pricks that don't like the "finacial news" don't even invest any of your own money. If you did, I'd highly doubt there'd be all this hate. Also, how can you say that Fox is worse than CNN? It's the same shit. Oh, wait. Ya'll are ignorant democrats, that's why. If you guys want change, parodies and trying to start "blog wars" isn't how you should go about it. Maybe you're just adding to the problems. Hello? Jackasses!

BoeingSpaceliner797's picture

anon 14416,


What is this "finacial news" of which you write?  Any relation to:

Anonymous's picture

sorry for the rage. i just learned that guys have two testicles.

Anonymous's picture

Anonymous speech is more than not being a crime, it is a fundamental right.

CNBC supporters can post here anonymously. Use your rights ! If you don't do, that's your problem.

Anonymous's picture

Black Swan Radio with an I Ching quote (wilhelm/baynes translation)?


Crook County's picture

Great job gang, 5/5.  Made me think of Common Sense.  Instead of declaring independence from a foreign power, you have proclaimed your independence from the MSM and their perceived control of what news "is."

You guys are at the tip of the spear in the r3VOLution.  They are fighting you now not knowing you have already won the game.  Keep up the great work.


BoeingSpaceliner797's picture

Just can't resist:


"Internet killed the video star,

Internet killed the video star."



Anonymous's picture

Marla reminds me somehow of this 'reporter', kicking ass.

Bob's picture

Nice shot across the bow!  Hell yeah. 


Anonymous's picture

Here Here !! Power to the people !!

Anonymous's picture

anonymity means, with multiple personalities, i don't have to pick one.

ok, anonymous will stop posting here now. what got me started was the self-righteous indignation of the letter.

anonymous out.

Dr Hackenbush's picture

You’re the Suckers!!  I’m all in.  Screw fundamentals, thirty-five percent run up in 10 days, who cares, I'm playing the "GRID LOCK TRADE" per CNGE's advise… See YOU at the BANK! 

Got to run.  Obama is speaking AGAIN – I never miss.  “Remember Race is NOT the issue” … got it. 

Pills please! 

Ben_the_Bald's picture

Regarding anonimity and related matters:


There are no secrets in Wall Street, especially with the advent of the Internet.


Here's an example of what I'm talking about coming from security folks:


On The Internet, There Are No Secrets