This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
An Open Letter To The Financial Media
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!
»
- 1-2's blog
- 19309 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
Clearly, Marla is jealous of somebody's rack.
that is so funny and delusional. Everyone knows that anyone can buy a rack like that at their local 5 and 10cent plastic surgeon.
But it will cost you a lot more than 10 cents and is not covered by insurance.
It was just sarcasm over the idea that if someone is thinking that another person is jealous about their manmade balloons, it really is kind of cheap. Nothing against anyone getting that done, just it is unlikely that someone would be jealous over someone cheaply flaunting the rack. And nothing against flaunting the rack, but it is a joke to think anyone [with any class and regardless of the black and white (what one may see on a first glance) persona of marla the FC character, she sounds like she has alot of class] would be jealous.
I believe John Winthrop and the great ones like him just rolled over in their graves in thankful appreciation for your great work in reigniting the spirit of our true America. The shadows of mass consumerism and compensated psychopaths that we idly elevate into "leadership" for it are coming into light. Now let's maintain momentum and create a viable third political party to ensure the better way. As good an idea as any (and one that will at least keep us laughing in good spirits in any event): www.lebowskiparty.com
Awesome Marla and 1-2! You must know how much your words and intentions are appreciated! Thank you!
With all the problems that we currently face as a country, and with the way things are going, i wouldn't be surprised if Wikipediaisn't regularly being revised under subjects relating to state run governments, etc. Did you read what deepcapture.com has to say about wikipedia--they basically said that they were blocked from adding their facts about naked short selling. ( The Stimulus bill probably had a few hundred million set aside for keeping wikipedia under state control... )
...so glad the grammar Nazi's aren't out in full force here!
epic *pass*
Marla, your godlike authority gains radiance at each dawn. But to acknowledge this is to fall into the trap of media personality worship, does it not? Such a conunundrum!
Seriously, one of the best points here is your (sadly) unique question, to whit:
>How old exactly is the phrase "media personality" after all?
I would argue that the human animal is genetically hard-wired to respond to fame (well, and of course, hotness) - but hotness and fame are so easily be manufactured in the digital era as to be prima facie suspect, particularly when fame (and hotness) are at the core of the message. CNBC is unfortunately no better and no worse than the rest of the old media, and I fear the new media is permeated with Perez Hiltonism, and is hence to be equally distrusted.
{ZI} ZH is in the rare air where the message itself is seen first; As your manifesto states, the choice of noms de plume represents your authorial overview, and I would bet that if circumstances change significantly, there will be no undue adhesion to them as brands - if, for instance, the culture ceases to echo correctly when 'Tyler' is referenced, but instead 'Cincinnatus' becomes a more pointed lead, well,.. (by contrast, of course, the dead brand loyalism of the ancient media is constantly on display, most recently yesterday at the Cronkheit revels.)
Anyways, your (that is, ZH's) attention to inner detail and donkey tail-pinioning is well-regarded out here. They suck, you guys don't.
And please do another DMCA Thursday! (that was me chatting you up early on last week., good set.)
Thx.
Point made... let's move on.
I prefer substantive posts like "New York City's Pain", "The Dangers of High Frequency Trading... As Predicted by Lawrence H. Summers" and "Unemployment Rate by State: June Update".
On the other hand, postings such as "A Plea For Your Made In China Garbage" promoting Wallstreetpro, while amusing, stoops to CNBC's level if such postings become primary focus, IMHO.
Let's see a substantive piece on DTCC (as promised) and its subsidiary Cede & Co. Here is primer: http://publikationen.ub.uni-frankfurt.de/volltexte/2007/4885/pdf/ILF_WP_068.pdf
and substantive action, if it is required, of course.
"let's move on" us? that soon?
You've jumped the shark. I come here for financial news I can't get anywhere else. Instead, it seems like I get more and more of this us vs. CNBC pissing match from both you and Denninger.
It's your site. You can do whatever you want but by responding to idiots like Kneale and Gasparino, you cheapen yourself and make yourself less relevant. That's exactly what they want.
So I hope you'll think about it and get back on mission. At the end of the day, who gives a flying fuck what CNBC says or does, besides you, I mean.
Anonymous, in case you missed it or didn't actually read it, it's titled "An Open Letter To The Financial Media" of which surely CNBC is one large part but only one part. You don't get it. Or you do and you're trolling. If you have been watching ZH from the beginning, then you would know this Open Letter is "on mission".
the zero hedge team never fails to impress me. kudos to you all!
flattery toward the anonymous? why bother?
flattery is worth something when you know each other (by title).
it's a price we have to pay (if there's something we don't want to lose).
Agreed- they only can handle 30 second bursts or they get lost and confused. You crammed a years worth of infomation into that brilliant post and I have a feeling you lost them after, "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."
Marvelous Marla, you nailed it. They are dying and are responding by grasping at straws. Their content sucks and yours does not. I mentioned penis envy in several comments now relating to CNBS v. ZI, my diagnosis (although not a professional one - just common sense) is spot on.
Maybe they are following the Vampire Squid model laid before them. Alas, that only worked for those culprits for a few years and thus will fail for CNBS as well. There is no blood in ZH.
CNBC just announced thy've signed Ron Burgundy. This is unbelievable. How did they do that? WOW !!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQ7dUlRUJIM
Don't mess with Afternoon Delight - please do not go there.
This is my first post here and I have to say that I am totally blown away by this post. I think this post deserves to be placed in an archive somewhere for future generations to read.
You have captured the thinking of everyman.
Bravo ZH.
and what is your thinking that is not of that type?
Do you really expect that a financial network own by GE that we are going to
get unbiased reporting.
I equate CNBC to The Circus. A bunch of clowns masquerading as financial
reporters.
And especially the biggest clown of all Dennis Kneale who is using the bloggers to increase the rating of the show, since he has
no hopes af actually staying in that position for too long.
Every time 8 oclock comes around I make sure I change the channel.
I suggest Max Keiser or Karl Denninger or sites like this.
I saw Charlie's blathering comments the other day, and I just have to say- What a complete idiot! (And I thought he was one of the good ones at one point).
How can anyone working for GE-controlled CNBC look into the camera with a straight face everyday, knowing they are wilfully ignoring some of the biggest corporate crimes of the day, going on right beneath all of our noses. "Smiles, Smiles, everyone!
I can only assume that ZH will avoid the temptation of posting CNBC video clips henceforth - painful to begin I am sure, as in when they have a good guest - but the medium must be the message as in Stop driving your readers to the CNBC site - of course should there be a wardrobe malfunction or similar event - making an exception would be acceptable - As for Fox and Bloomberg - Fox is actually okay as at least they don't presume to be anything other than what they are - Bloomberg is a poor person's version of both e.g. the talent there gets likely gets min wage (which means they got a raise today) -
GREAT JOB Tyler!
Keep up the phenomenal work that you are doing. Charlie Gasparino?? You will be working for Tyler someday. Hint...you are already much closer to him than you realize.
The Financial Media Sucks and I do my part to help expose them.
As you can see for yourself if you choose.
New Charlie Gasparino video to view.
http://moespeeks.blogspot.com/
Please take a moment to tell this administration what you think about the Goldman fraud, and demand an investigation.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/CONTACT/
Could this be a govt. "HONEYPOT"?
**authentic ZH users**
be careful what you click on or respond to!
The idea of business news network makes sense but it was never really brought to the TV market. Instead of daily indepth reporting, we get wall street honchos pitching their book and companies on a daily basis, while talking shit and being held to no accountability with researched counter points.
Personalities who gossip and sit around a desk each morning drinking coffee and sounding like the woman on The View breathlessly talking about Brad Pitt and his latest topless photo! GE has created a business entertainment network much like E! GE won't spend the money for a real business news network. So we get Cramer and his big red buttons with cartoon sound affects!!!
i don't buy the old media/new media thing.
sure, old media is the dried crust overlaying society, but new media didn't stop the iraq war from happening, it isn't helping to bring the rapacious scoundrels on wall street to court.
the way people were going on about iranians tweeting to us. it sounded to me like people thought this form of communication can start a revolution.
even old media over-estimated what was going on there.
when something terrible happens, and, of course, i'm referring to the weather, we will turn to radio and tv, if it's on.
the internet is hodge podge. when it really matters, turn on the radio.
I get your point and I agree to an extent, but only to an extent. The difference between old and new is obviously the ability of user content to shape the information product, just as 'curbyourrisk' mentions above.
Look at the internet (specifically blogs and twitter) use in Iran lately. Look at the trouble its giving China as it fumbles trying to intervene militarily. Look at the effort Russia had to put into a perception management campaign last summer in Georgia--a campaign for hearts and minds in that part of the world that they clearly won and used to successfully discredit the US. It's more than just that the internet is more efficient than the fax networks the Romanians used so well in 1989 that ended up with their criminals being killed on television, it's that with the modern mobile media, you can be in the street and see, report, and make news. McLuhan said the medium IS the message. Think about it: If you are there, reporting/contributing, you are adding to the equation. You could just be the one who adds that last bucket that breaks the dam.
Sure, your point of turning to established media is well taken; The revolution may indeed be televised by the old media and twisted in ways to keep as many as possible viewers riveted to their couch, but I see the internet bloggery as one step closer away from the couch, out the living room door and into the action in the street.
Referencing Publius Valerius Publicola, Uncle Buck, and the genesis for "Mastermind" in the same post - Glad to see you've joined the team, EP.
1-2 I like you too.
We are all Tylder Durden's, together....we can topple the MSM and get the real story out there.
Keep up the good work!
CSPAN just now
Rep Michele Bachmann to Bernanke, Bair et. al:
"will Starbucks become too big to fail?" -
silence
This was intense, long and hard-hitting. Damn... need to re-heat the Chinese food that's been on my plate for all that time
The dinosaurs are munching on greens while the asteroid has just entered the Earth's atmosphere. Perhaps at some future date, the world will make petroleum products out of extinct network anchors. At least then their existence will have had some greater meaning.
I used this line yesterday, but I'll repeat it (as I lack sufficient creativity to produce on a regular basis): CNBC is the Jerry Springer of financial news, all cacophany and inane dribble, aimed at those born during God's coffee break. And on top of that, CNBC's 'talent' is intellectually lazy, content to pander to the woefully uninformed.
Note that a majority of what TD et al post here is from open sources, whether that is the Fed's balance sheet, FDIC website, 10-Q's and 8-K's, Bloomberg screen captures, exchange or brokerage reports, etc. While the selection process may well indicate a bias, it is not as if the material is made up or of questionable veracity. It's out there, available to anyone with time, knowledge and drive, which I suppose rules out 90% of CNBC staff, who must spend their time on voice lessons so they can scream louder than a CBOT pit trader during a fast market. TD et al supplement the material they post with insights gained from their own experience, again more to inform than to opine. The combination produces a website that is not only good, but which has garnered such attention among the professional financial community that it threatens the existence of the fat and lazy MSM. When a network is reduced to selling ad time to Zanthir and his pan flute 3-CD collection, the end must surely be nigh.
I am a finance industry professional (trader), now retired. I learned precious little over the years from CNBC, though I always appreciated the knowledge and insights from Santelli and Faber, and occasionally even Gasparino (who, if he was both let loose and directed his talents appropriately, could be a true star.) From this site, on the other hand, I have learned an enormous amount in a short period of time, and have been entertained while reading in.
You can let ZH get under your craw, while continuing your rapid descent to irrelevance, or you can let TD light a fire under your butts and do the job the Fourth Estate was meant to do. Sadly, I know the choice you will make. That asteroid is getting closer every second.
Hey Tyler and freinds....Thanks for everything you guys REPORT on. Hmmm..I have never said that to anyone at CNBS before. I wonder why?
OK...now a note to the financial mainstream media. PAY ATTENTION "dickweeds", Tyler Durden, although annonymous, is more than 1 person. WE ARE ALL TYLER DURDEN here. We participate in the reporting and question what is reported. We can not do that on your medium, as what you say is YOUR LAST WORD. When Tyler (or our other friends) report something, we can question where they got their information from, what they think it means, how it affects trading,.....and so on. And you know what??? THEY ANSWER US. WHY? because we are all TYLER DURDEN. Their reputation depends on getting the story right. You think offending 1 name is funny. You think challenging 1 blog site is funny. It is not...WE ALL FIND it offensive, and NONE of us think it is funny.
The blogs and their "bloggers" have presented more facts and competent reporting in the last 6 weeks, than you have in the last 6 years. The Bloggers, are not reporting based on what their parent corporations demand them too, nor do they have anyone to answer to. The only person they answer to is US....and like I said...that is because we ask them questions .... they have made their platform INTERACTIVE. We are part of those very blogs that you chose to mock. Lets take the recent buzz story. High frequency trading. OK...how long have the blogs been reporting on this???? And how much time have you at CNBS spent on such items? Damn...even the old grey lady (the NYT) collapsed and covered as NEWS, something the blogs have been a buzz about for 2 weeks.
Why are the blogs effective? Easy....they are or were the peole on the front lines. Mr. Gas-bag has said they are most likely people with an axe to grind holed up in their parents basement. Well, let me ask you a question.....who is more dangerous...some "journalist (used very lightly) reporting on a story, or some ex-grunt man who has been there, done that and DOES have an axe to grind? Someone like that is not afraid to ask the HARD questions, because he/she is not afraid of NOT HAVING THE GUEST come back. He/she does not care if he hurts someone's feelings on air...just cares about getting to the REAL story....
So until...you "so called" journalists...start asking the hard questions, start demanding REAL answers, start using REAL data and not just the fluff provided to you, and start respecting the REPORTING done by those in the blogosphere....you will reamin nothing but eye candy on the BOOB tube. AND until then, I will continue to get my news from those bloggers and my entertainment....from your NEWS program.
-Curb
great thoughts curb and kudos to 1-2 for a dynamite piece.
the msm suggestions about bloggers being in mom's basement, etc are getting stale. as an anecdotal demographic, I'm mid 50s, been in financial services sector for 30 yrs, 4 yr college educated, upper middle class, virtually no debt, older children, did a ton of community service work throughout my career.
I would think CNBC would want my demo for their advertisers....alas, too late, they have lost me.
Well said.
Nice.
Disenchantment with the MSM is what brought me here few months ago. I've learned quite a bit along the way...
Curb,
I like you.
1-2
well said curb
*applause*
Excellent piece, well done 1-2 and Marla.
Fucking amazing.
Only point of contention: stacked anchors. Take away the eyepopping graphics, the melodramatic music, but don't take away my stacked anchors!
That is, as long as the "news" is really news.
Fantastic Op-Ed. Unfortunately I belive anyone who truly understands what you are saying has already understood this for quite sometime now. Those who don't understand it will no doubt try to reduce it to a piece written by a pasty zit-faced computer nerd in his(/her?) mom's basement.
Has anyone else noticed how stupid people always label intelligence as a nerd/dork/geek?
Thanks ZH, let operation online mayhem begin, the revolution won't be televised, it will be blogged...
marla = equity private?
As you so eloquently put it, MSM hasn't had an Ernie Pyle type reporter for years. CNBC and the rest are a medium to sell ads, just like sports and every other program on the idiot box. Stick it to 'em, sons of bitch are dead, they just won't admit it
So we going back to ZeroHedge now or still sticking wif ZeroIntelligence?
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." - Thomas Jefferson
It is exceptionally pleasing to me to see such eloquent writing and expressive use of the language. 1-2, you took this whole community up another notch with that excellent piece. You said things I've thought about, but never had consolidated into a fully-articulated perspective.
One of the morals I drew from your work supports my philosophy that mature business models, organizations, and strategies collapse under the weight that they have worked so hard to prop-up over their heads.
Making a 24 hour broadcasting channel around the concept of financial news, weather, music videos, etc. leads to a "scorched earth" mode of saturation, where the only way to produce marginal growth is to stray further from the core purpose of your existence.
CNBC fell victim to the same thing that changed MTV. How much longer will we need to wait before CNBC features an off-hours reality show? Oh wait, they already started dabbling in that with their investor contest....
Anyway, I digress. Excellent job, I am truly impressed with your work.
CNBC is GroupthinkTV, and our government is a groupthinkthinktank...we are living in a grouthinkcountry...FC theme embodied here at ZH could wake people up and get them to step out for their integrity's sake, and for the sake of our country.
I got one. "Madoff in da House"