This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.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
- 19310 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
Big up
Is 1-2 a new ZH contributor, or a guest poster? Is 1-2 a character in FC?
Contributor--I've just been laying low.
1-2 is not a FC name--it's FC related though.
Well if laying low means that you surface occasionally with posts like this one, then by Jupiter's Biscuit you should lay low!
The stock market looks like a couple of boobs and so does CNBC.
What do you have against boobs? lol
"Do ya like boobs alot?
Ya gotta like boobs alot."
Fugs,"First Album",1965
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPVgKoruWdA
but don't let them distract you.
Since I made such a point about being available, please see my email in my signature.
It's good to be back.
1-2 (onetwoknockout + gmail)
Bravo!
Who's going to send a copy to Charlie and the Boob Lady?
I think Caruso throws jabs intentionally so she can later read all the comments about her awesome rack. Her captcha question would be: 1 big boob + 1 big boob = ?
Self serving crap. The financial news shows have play between the lines of entertainment and news. News shows have been doing this or over 30 years. There is absolutely nothing wrong with using indentifiability to enhance credibility. (How are we to know if someone usurps your website and starts publishing under your name?)
There is a big difference between publishing anonymously, as the economist does, and hiding, as you do. At least we know the conflicts the exist for CNBC. We don't even know your conflicts. This makes your work at least as suspect as theirs.
You point out that all of your content is supported by links, graphs and statistics. This is only marginally helpful as any thoughtful reader should know, one can tell any story one wants to by selecting the right "facts."
Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting that you need to come out of the closet, only that your position is no better than that of personality news. They both have their pitfalls.
Signed anonymously.
Charlie, you can go ahead and sign your name. You weren't fooling anyone.
Is that you poor little Charlie?
oops, #14193 anony, didn't read ahead before i replied...but i guess we are both calling our to poor little Charlie.
Wake up Charlie, you are just not understanding, or else, you really are a shill.
Gasparino, that you?
I don't think you understand the difference between witty 'entertainment' and gratuitous trash. This web site offers plenty of the former and none of the latter vis-a-vis cnbc.
Also, sourcing a plethora of facts from reliable sources in support of an argument is far more salient than staking your arguments on a 'reputation' consisting primarily of sound effects, buxom anchors and inflammatory headlines combined with a stark lack of substance.
I am long gold, silver, and cash (USD). Not the ETFs imo.
hard assets. wish i had more of 'em.
Your best asset is your brain. I have hard assets, been accumulating for over a decade, but you know what? Chances are that I find myself sitting on a toilet somewhere in Jerkwater, USA the weekend things go bad, and even if I make it home through through the Fatherland Sekurity checkpoints, I'll find the home well ransacked. The prime asset you have for the future is a nimble brain, with some good luck as a bonus.
by nimble, i assume you mean inquisitive, ability to rapidly apply past experience to present situation and, perhaps most importantly, unmuddled (by anybody or anything).
We are long it all. We are short it all. Act accordingly.
Is this the kind of full disclosure you would want from all financial media? Perhaps it would be more honest. With skepticism, I prefer the old way. Motley Fool does a decent job.
We've written extensively on disclosure in our conflicts / full-disclosure disclosure. If you can't understand our position after reading that (and this) then it is time for us to spend the rest of our day on more productive pursuits.
how about "forcing" so to speak a click on of the (excellently written) conflict/full disc. policy when someone registers? just a thought
I have been sending my musings to the press for a decade. I have contacts at all the pro press. Save one. In ten years CNBC has never never responded to a thing I have sent.
These folks live in an ivory tower.
its not an ivory tower, but greenSHIT tower built on the foundations of sand ..
Their tower is not made out of anything so valuable or coveted as Ivory...
We cancelled the cable in 2004 and haven't watched television since. I miss a few things. I don't catch some of the sexual jokes about the sitcoms, but, hey...nothing's perfect. I like this site because Tyler's smarter than I am, and that's the only kind of person worth my time anymore.
Exceptional piece of work. I particularly like the reference to stacked actors. This made me think of one of the greaterst songwirters of my generation, Dave Grohl and the song Stacked Actors on the Foo Fighters 3rd album. Here is a comment form Dave on the song:
"Stacked Actors' is a response to living in Hollywood for about a year and a half, and my disdain and disgust of everything plastic and phony, which is the foundation of that city. And I just hated it. I had a lot of fun, but I had a lot of fun hating it."
Sounds like CNBC to me. And the lyrics? Well here they are and you cannot help but picture almost everyone on CNBC as you read them:
Oh mirror mirror
Youre coming in clear
Im finally somewhere in between
Im impressed
What a beautiful chest
I never meant to make a big scene
Will you resign to the latest design
You look so messy when you dress up in dreams
One more for hire
Or wonderful liar?
I think its time we all should come clean
Chorus
Stack dead actors
Stacked to the rafters
Line up the bastards
All I want is the truth
Hey hey now, can you fake it?
Can you make it look like we want?
Hey hey now, can you take it?
And we cry when they all die blonde?
Verse 2
God bless, what a sensitive mess
Yeah but things arent always what they seem
Youre teary wise
Your famous disguise
Never knowing who to believe
See through
Yeah, but what do you do?
When youre just another aging drag queen?
Enjoy your Friday with this cpli of Foo in the UK doing this song: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jk44WlYkF00
Miton Friedman's Ghost
Amen sister - our own online digital version of NETWORK - let the revolution begin
bravo. tho I think that your overlong defense of anonymous criticism makes the point carry more weight than it should, giving your detractors a window they will surely exploit to make more noise ad nauseum in order to avoid having a substantive discussion on your more salient points; or even, gasp!, change their paradigm.
A sign of the times. Jon Stewart, America's most trusted newsman
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/07/23/poll-jon-stewart-is-americas-mos...|wbml-aim|dl1|link3|http%3A%2F%2Fwww.politicsdaily.com%2F2009%2F07%2F23%2Fpoll-jon-stewart-is-americas-mo...
This comment is for all of those talking heads at CNBC... It gives me great pleasure to know I won't see what you're shrieking about on TV today, but there's a real possibility you personally are reading this post. Know that I agree fully with TD. Your days are numbered and you are irrelevant; not even a footnote in the footnotes of history.
I just wanted to thank you for your excellent site. I quit watching CNBC a few weeks ago after years of loyal viewership (and a lack of options). Don't care much for Bloomberg either. I visit this site 20 to 30 times a day rather than watching TV. It is time for the truth to be heard.
THE best work I've seen! Great, just flippin' great!! You really outdid yourselves!!
Good read. Personally, I'd lose the first paragraph and just dive in. But well said all in all...
I just watch Bloomberg on internet feed, 90% less commercials.
Can anyone explain to me why ECRI keeps predicting economic recovery, and Zerohedge keeps predicting economic disaster?
NEW YORK, July 24 (Reuters) - A gauge of future U.S.
economic growth edged higher in the latest week, while its
measure of annual growth continued to stride at five-year
highs, feeding hopes that a smooth recovery is due this year, a
research group said on Friday. The Economic Cycle Research Institute, a New York-based
independent forecasting group, said its Weekly Leading Index
rose to 118.4 in the week to July 17 from 118.1 the previous
week. The index's annualized growth rate jumped to a fresh
five-year high of 7.7 percent from 7.0 percent one week ago. It was the index's highest yearly growth rate reading since
the week ended May 7, 2004, when it stood at 7.8 percent. "With WLI growth climbing to a new five-year high, it is
reaffirming that the end of recession is at hand and that the
U.S. economy is poised for recovery in short order," said
Lakshman Achuthan, managing director at ECRI. The weekly index rose due to higher stock and commodity
prices, said Achuthan.
"The index rose do to higher stock and commodity prices"
If the higher prices were due to money created out of nothing, it may lead one to believe that the recovery they are forecasting may also be made out of nothing.
Stop listening to other people and think for yourself!
For example, I predict "the sun will come up tomorrow".
Did I enlighten you? Didn't think so.....
Predictions that come to fruition mark the "predictor" as a genius. Predictions that don't come to fruition are forgotten. So who cares if predictions are wrong, they're just forgotten.
"The weekly index rose due to higher stock and commodity prices."
So this is recovery? Could it be this is where liquidity goes when there is nothing better to do with it? Their index must have been predicting gangbusters back in September 2007. That turned out well.
At some point, an economist will theorize that rising stock prices quite often merely reflect hope, or habit, or benchmarking and they are not some magic oracle "predicting" recovery. Yes, wealth effects do exist, and it is possible that prices rise before fundamentals confirm, but in bear market rallies such as this one, I am drawn more toward a study of the US in 1930, or Japan in 1992, 1994 and 1996.
Because ECRI are liars like the rest of these criminals.
Their job is to keep you invested until the plug gets pulled. Which is probably not far off. For example, about a quarter $trillion in USTbond droppings are for sale over the next week.
70 day CMBs, $30 billion (July 24th)
13 week Bills, $32 billion (July 27th)
26 week Bills, $31 billion (July 27th)
52 week Bills, $27 billion (July 28th)
2 year Notes, $42 billion (July 28th)
5 year Notes, $39 billion (July 29th)
7 year Notes, $28 billion (July 30th)
19 year, 6 month TIPS (reopened), $6 billion (July 27th)
Stop it, you're making me swoon. This situation is so sweet, I think I'm getting chubby.
There's nothing like Japanese intelligence agents ferrying around American bearer bonds around in the middle of the night! Hell, I bet they work for S.P.E.C.T.R.E.
Love it
msm tells nothing but lies and spin, don't watch.
1-2....out fucking standing!
You're giving them too many words. Who cares what they do. Keep doing what you do.
Does anyone commenting on this blog ever have anything to say longer than a sentence or two?
Is fuck you too long?
Be nice.