This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Zero Hedge's Op-Ed To The New York Times
I sent this Op-Ed proposal to the New York Times on Friday. Perhaps they will print it. If so, I will donate the proceeds (don't they pay you $450?) to the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
Zerohedge.com is a finance-focused weblog bringing together nearly 40 anonymous contributors dedicated to providing the public with a deeper, more detailed discourse on all things finance. After less than ten months since our first post, we’re among the top online publications nationwide in terms of readers, eclipsing other properties with several years of history, A-list contributors, and the backing of the country’s largest, mainstream media firms. Like many publications before us, not least the Federalist Papers, we encourage our contributors to use pen names. Part of our rationale in adopting a publication-wide preference for anonymity (or, technically, pseudonymity) for our contributors and staff is to avoid making “the story” about the messengers rather than the message. We believe content should stand on its own merits; if it cannot, neither a sterling reputation on the part of the author nor dazzling penmanship will manage to prop it up. Likewise no amount of nefarious author history should, in isolation, tear down well-written, fact-based discussion and analysis. An intelligent and skeptical audience should not be dazzled by several layers of foundation, whether on a swimsuit model or a sow.
On Thursday, following weeks of criticism of our anonymity on CNBC and elsewhere, a reporter from the New York Post confronted our public relations representative over the alleged identity of one of our contributors. As a matter of policy, Zero Hedge does not comment on the identity of contributors or staff, but over the course of a 30 minute conversation with the reporter, something interesting emerged: the reporter in question was so befuddled by this policy that she barely knew what to say. She had, quite literally, no idea how to write a story that wasn't primarily about personalities. Her attempt to bribe our public relations representative with favorable coverage for an exclusive is an example of what is wrong with financial reporting today. When reporting egos flatter (or threaten) other egos to pull facts, or garner the access required to secure a six-figure advance for their upcoming tell-all book, does anyone really believe we can expect an objective retelling of the facts worthy of the sacred, constitutionally-protected trust we as citizens have given the Fourth Estate? Have the press forgotten that this is, in fact, a trust, and not a quitclaim deed? Do they not realize that they are the Estate's trustees, and not its property owners?
Now, more than ever, anonymity is critical to the Republic. This should surprise no one. It has been a critical part of speech in this country since before its founding. Without the courageous and then-anonymous writings of, e.g., Thomas Paine or the authors of The Federalist Papers, our nation would be a very different place today. Though we cannot confirm or deny that Thomas Paine or any of the founding fathers are Zero Hedge contributors today, we do believe we understand something of their motivation for using pen names.
Early on in Zero Hedge's history the view surfaced that, to bring up circulation, we should dumb down our content and post more biographical detail to bolster our credibility. Thankfully, we decided against that. The results, in terms of readership, and despite the absence of “credentials” as they are traditionally understood, speak for themselves. This is but one reason that today more than ever, we think it is time to end the cult of personality in financial reporting. It is no accident that Harry Markopoulos (the accountant whose repeated attempts to expose Bernie Madoff to anyone who would listen were as often ignored) sought to avoid the limelight.
In 1995, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commissions: “Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority.... It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the bill of rights, and of the first amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation—and their ideas from suppression—at the hand of an intolerant society.” Given the financial events of the last twelve months, we think it clear that this must be the end of the status quo for financial regulation in the United States. We are also keenly aware that a number of extremely well-resourced, established players have little incentive in seeing any change at all. As we live in an age where posting on a blog can get you fired years later after a casual, lunch-hour Google search by a Human Resources representative, has there ever been a more important time for anonymous speech in financial reporting? We think not.
We revel in an educated, skeptical audience that takes us to task for every fact, assumption, and bit of analysis we write. We think this keeps the focus where it belongs, away from the personalities and egos that muddy the water of skeptical inquiry. Believe us, doubt us, argue with us, then decide where the best analysis is being generated: from reporters at brand-name media outlets, without a lifetime of expertise on the subjects on which they write and whose allegiances lie as much as with the sources they need to keep happy as with the readers they purportedly serve, or with those insiders who by shedding the burden of identification, are free to expose the abuses, absurdities, and abscesses of both those in power and those who report on them.
"Marla Singer," Zero Hedge
»
- 16689 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
yes of course..its like asking V ( V for Vendetta guy) to remove his mask...it doesnt matter who is behind the mask..its the idea that matters
on another note, marla, there might be some pressure to reveal identities soon
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=1910409
Gee, too bad we don't use a Google owned platform anymore. Well, luckily that blogger who is about to be exposed lives in the land of the free and the home of the brave. I'm sure they won't have anything to worry about.
well said Marla, keep it up.
Keep going, TD. Do not stop.
Nice job!!!
Excuse me, keep going, TD et al.....
I think I'm going to cry.
...Yep! (acts like something's in his eye).
What a powerful article but I highly doubt that this will be published! We don't have real reporting in this country anymore except for bloggers. This is why newspapers will be extinct! Keep up the great work!
+1
Nothing like anonymity to get one's ideas co-opted btw.
"I highly doubt that this will be published!"
Given the drop in circulation of the NY Times, it might get more eyeballs just being on ZH
New slogan suggestion for ZH website & tee-shirts:
If the lone ranger could wear a mask, then what's the problem?
Don't give up you day job ;-)
anon. #45346,
While your reply removes any doubt about the overwhelming amount of creativity that you're capable of. What a display of raw talent! ;-)
His Name Is Robert Paulson.
Makes one wonder what Thomas Paine's later life would have been like if he'd published the Age of Reason under a pseudonym...
don't spend it all on blow and red bull :D ... fantastic job Marla,hope they print it.
Would Carlos Slim approve?
you sure take yourselves seriously...
Anonymous, my friend, this is the majors. Dilettantes have no place. If that's not clear to you already given that the likes of CNBC attack us twice a week, then you need a visit to Pearle.
Quoting Justice JP Stevens was brilliant. That's why ZH is my first read everyday and several times a day.
To the above shrill Anon. comment, if people in high places weren't taking this site seriously
why is somebody like you here doing your best to detract? Mr. Gasparino?
He is one of my favorites. I had lunch with him in DC once. Amazing.
great job Marla!
The only finer post I have ever read in support of anonymous blogging was penned by Tanta (Doris Dungey, RIP) on Calculated Risk in 2007.
http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2007/03/media-inquries-policy.html
Thank you for going where she went. We all need to get vocal about any encroachment on free speech in the blogosphere, especially those that want to remove necessary cloaks of anonymity (and we should all support the very vocal Electronic Freedom Foundation).
The New York Times will reveal a lot about itself depending on how it treats this letter.
#45347:
I'm not sure you can appreciate the degree to which it warms me (and almost brings a tear to my eye) to even obliquely be compared to Tanta (Doris...). I was a loyal reader, and afflicted mourner. I should live 1000 years and aspire only to live up to her prose.
I miss Tanta terribly--especially now that we are on the backside of the stimulus -- there has been no healing of the foreclosure crisis (she must be whirling in her grave), no elimination of massive toxic debt, and the no end to twisted policies enabling banks that created the crisis to cement their too-big-to-fail status by indenturing victims if the crisis --state governments and taxpayers-- to high-interest loans and high fees.
I am so sorry she is not here to brandish her wit and clarity and outrage at all of this, but so glad to see that others have taken up where she so tragically left off. I hope you appreciate how much you are valued by your readers.
CR and a very few other blogs pulled me away from a cliff during the housing runup, when I was about to make a very bad decision that would have cost me dearly. I was saved by The Blogs--not the Fourth Estate. I-- and thousands of others lucky enough to stumble on the unvarnished, data-driven, often anonymously written truth --will never forget that.
MS financial journalists that do not have the widsom or humility to acknowledge these blogs' success-and their own failures--are busily sowing the seeds of their own destruction. That the Fourth Estate cannot do its job is a tragedy entirlely of its own making.
I loved reading her blog too, although I was mesmorized by Zerohedge before I caught her stuff but caught up and admired her also. Always wondering what could I have done better, in re: to the mortgage mess. It's now too little too late, but it's not too late for you at ZH, it's just the beginning, great work always. Thanks is NOT enough. (just think of it as carrying on her torch)
It's wild, I was thinking the same thing as I was reading the post. It has a similar even healed cool logicians approach without being offensive, and Tanta was great at that. Even if you didn't agree you would always finish reading what she wrote...
well done.
I am a big fan of yours but please don't go all bragging about how anonymous you are and deserve to be. You publish under pseudonyms, fine with me and fine with everyone else. Just don't feel obliged to justify it over and over again. Ignore the trolls, do not feed them.
here here
I disagree. If the site loses the anonymity, the rest of us lose the content. It's up to you whether you hold the anonymity policy in the highest regard or not, but it's one of the lynchpins to what makes us all visit the site.
Beautifully written and oh so true. Why is that the established media is railing against such truth and effectiveness? Sold their souls to the corporate devils too many years ago. Carry on with the fine (and scary to the establishment) work. You have my deepest respect.
--Anonymous
NYT should publish it - they need the readers.
& if they do ZH gets more readers too.
Which place will they stay? (no contest)
go Marla! ZH is doing us all a great service. Thanks.
Well written piece, easily understood by the average reader.
Right on, Marla. Great op-ed. Not likely the NYT will print it but hey, you gotta try. Anyway, great job.
Keep it up Tyler! I don't think that the New York Slimes of Walter Duranty fame will prin it but hope springs eternal.
good luck having them publish that, the old gray whore long ago gave up anything that resembled journalistic integrity and intellectual honesty
I'm thinking MSM & PTB have realized anon speech is a sore point for ZH.
They will coordinate efforts to bait you, distract you, and (attempt) to draw you out: circling the fountain of truth and chipping at structural weaknesses.
Would you not retain more power if you ignore their efforts completely?
Don't pull your punches.
Don't get distracted.
Keep dragging the cockroaches into the sunlight. Wear your yellow rubber gloves.
Sore point? Are you nuts? It's one of our founding tenants tenets!
Please... PLEASE continue attacking us for one of the features that founded this Republic. Please... oh PLEASE keep that up.
"Sore point" was a poor choice of words, perhaps.
Please indulge me in a rephrase.
ZH is about the message, not the messenger. That's the purpose of the anon speech tenant. Understood. And agreed.
(keep on keepin' on)
However, MSM & PTB are attempting to engage ZH *specifically* on the anon speech tenant. By engaging with them — even in defense or clarification — the situation reverts to being about the messenger, instead of the message.
Paradigm flip.
The end result is the press on ZH is about "anon" instead of the message. The financial message gets lost against the noise of the search for anon: "Did you see that article in NYT about the anon blog that writes about...about...something?"
Unless, of course, ZH's *dual* purpose is to address the right to anon speech...in addition to exposing dirty financial laundry. In which case, full on.
A soar point?
tenets
I am just proud to be a reader and occasional poster. I cannot imagine the sense of satisfaction y'all must feel, daily.
This is the best and most important site, not just fiancial site, on the internet. Welcome to the revolution, of sanity, of non-corruption, of free thought.
As we live in an age where posting on a blog can get you fired years later after a casual, lunch-hour Google search by a Human Resources representative, has there ever been a more important time for anonymous speech in financial reporting? We think not.
There have been at least four people at my corporation fired for this.
It is exactly because of this type of nonsense that I decided not to work for any corporation - ever. Fuck off, bastards.
If you were to offer "I am Tyler Durden" t-shirts, I would be one. Your pseudonimity is refreshing and welcome. If everyone admits that they are Tyler Durden (like the T-Shirt idea), then nobody can be Tyler Durden.
I think, however, that your appearances on main stream media confuse your stance. Do all contributors have the "right" to portray themselves as TD in interviews? Or is only one person allowed to speak for the name? If indeed the "voice" of TD is limited to one individual, then the concept is weakened.
Finally, as you continue to elevate the impact of your writings, I suggest that you consider that your excessive use of hyperbole may create a glass ceiling to your credibility. I would encourage you to tone that down to allow your mission to reach a larger audience who may be put off by this behavior. If you want to rant, make the rant the topic and have at it. If you want to report on who the next Fed Chairman will be, lighten up on the passionate parentheticals.
Sincerely,
"Tyler Durden" ;)
Give 'em Hell, Marla. ZH is an Oxygen supply in a room full of foul air.
this is a repost of a comment i wrote on NC under the post questioning TD and ZH " legitimacy ", i find it important to post it here simply because it is a summary WHY anonymity is important. It is not your standard view on anonymity as a protection tool, but as a tool of validation; but to make a long post short; here ya go
" Yves, is that jealousy i find in the tone of your post; first of all anonymity is the basis of accomplishment throughout history of mankind and it serves a purpose; as you my,or may not know; Gadamer came to a startling conclusion that anonymity is one of the basis for a successful reading; and thus basically one of necessary epistemological components when it comes to validating consensus of either relation or objectivity of that relation among all the parties which take position in the discourse itself; furthermore; if the true nature of the information is objective truth or it holds reference to truth; then the source of that information is meaningless ( Vienna circle and Habermas ); all that matters is context; furthermore; information; as knowledge; can only be objective if accepted trough various verification models by number of independent observes ( ZH satisfies this, and all of the above ). So your " critique " of anonymity is either a) subjective and thus not valid or b) simple logical fallacy and un-intentional mistake; if first is the case that your reasons are purely anthropological/psychological and can be dismissed as subliminal but if b) then you show a warning lack of the tool you use to promote your thought and information and then rises something called perpetual loop( or in logic circular reasoning); and that is basically that the content you provide can be bounded to intentional mistake which would immediately compromise it in a) utilization b) truthfulness . I hope you get what I'm trying to say; but if not let me summarize it for you
a) it is the manifistation of your nature
b) it is the manifestation of your lack of understanding what writing is ( read Derrida ) and what is the nature of knowledge and information ( take some epistemology courses )"
Cheeky, read you comment on NC, Bravo. In regard to NC,People in glass houses should not throw spitballs, makes for a nasty looking glass.
Last night someone posted that Yves is head of Aurora Advisors. Look at their list of clients. Not throwing spitballs at Yves at all but she would have been better served keeping her fingers still.
"Representative clients include:
* American Express
* Bankers Trust
* Dresdner Bank
* Industrial Bank of Japan
* Lehman Brothers
* McKinsey & Company
* The New Republic
* ShoreBank
* Soros Fund Management
* Swiss Bank
* Tech Pacific Australia
* The Weather Channel
In addition to serving well-recognized concerns, we have also worked on behalf of Forbes 400 families, mid-sized investment firms, boutique investment banks, and substantial individuals."
http://www.auroraadvisors.com/our_clients.htm
good point anon.
i was wondering when i saw the list of her clients; would she write about Soros and his manipulation of south-east asian currencies in the early 00s, or GS involvement in blowing the dot.com bubble ( this was known for years, even before Taibbi wrote about it ); or Swiss bank acting like and intermediary for Mossad ans CIA during the 80s ( haven't seen NO ONE writing about that, although it is a known fact in Swiss, particularly in Geneva ). Oh, and did you catch that post on NC where someone listed all the information regarding ZH tech structure. I mean, its fucking retarded to act like that.
Andy +10; you are right; i re-checked my point of reference and the Indonesian president was not talking about Soros, but some Ukrainian guy. Yes, thank you for correcting me; that's what i get when trying to remember an article i read 7 yrs ago.
EDIT: i dont want to be junked for political reasons. ( yeah that goes to you I Heart Goldies; FUCK YOU )
no dude, of course not; that's Chabal; the toughest motherfucker around. check it out ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePto52GQrz0&feature=related
cheeky pulls back the curtain ever so slightly, I knew that dude looked familiar. you should use ollie leroux for fun.
this is fucking madness what i am learning on this ZH site.
my late husband was a nationally know rugby player.
it plagued him almost to his death.
but he was pushed to his death by another rugby player that idolized him for what he wasn't.
fucking men are so screwed up.
he said he got so beat up by this sport.
saturday nights he just ached with pain. he didn't know why he was supposed to undure this. probably for the glory of others, like you.
he was taken down by the big push to be
b e t t e r
and b e t t e r
and f a s t e r and f a s t e r
t o u g h e r and t o u g h e r
pushed to the brink, by ego's and others.
he was a tool for other males to realize their fucking {no} balls.
he had balls, dead.
The Weather Channel
-owned by NBC
painful,
as now I am forced to wake up with Al Roker and Stephanie Abrams
So those CNBS anchors that have been subbing on the evening national news have no freaking clue what they're reporting about?
Who would have thunk it? Or, shudder... exposed it.
Nice post Marla.
Hey Raymond,
Have you been following New Zealand closely as they navigate through the downturn? (Cheeky pointed me to you... see here: http://www.zerohedge.com/article/boston-fed-panic-1907-or-2008)
I saw 2 articles in the WSJ about the NZ gov't cutting taxes and other pro-growth policies. Unfortunately I haven't followed up on how it's working out for them, but I thought you might have more insight, being in the Commonwealth and all.
Here are the WSJ articles for those who are curious:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122928801357304815.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123376917763348479.html
"Tenet," I believe, as in a fundamental, guiding principle, is the operative word. I am humbled to have even posted to this website, which as near as I can tell, based on limited information, is what is at least debated at ZH. Truth is a scarce commodity these days, and it is dangerous (in terms of acceptance in various circles of power) to speak it, for any number of reasons. Once "approved speech" becomes the norm, "free speech" metamorphs into the unfettered right to repeat ad infinitum that which you have been told, or learned, is perfectly all right to say. All other thoughts are thereby condemned as verbal mediums of exchange between tin hats, kooks, outliers and malcontents. From revolution to Empire, the transition is mostly imperceptible, but this phenomemon surely must be one of the signs of the contraction of true freedom. Free speech means nothing if you are mocked and ridiculed for speaking - when that becomes the case, the words are the important part, the song not the singer. Hence, the need for anonymnity.
Re: Dumbing down the content.
I can freely admitt I have been on the street for 20 years and some of your info goes right over my head. But I deal with it. Hey, we can all learn some new stuff right.
I have commented on this before.
Quite often Tyler/Marla are preaching to the quire. Sadly if they want to reach a broader audience then the content has to be tailored to the intellect of the audience. Lets just say this is sad commentary on the American educational system. Joe Six pack could care less about the happenings on Wall Street and are more interested in their next American Idol "fix". If enough Joe Six packs loose their homes and livelihood maybe then they might be incited to do something about it. Note the maybe....
awesome
there you go folks- 40+- people involved in this blog. End Of Story.
I'm still waiting for Zerohedge to put up a damming expose of CNBC of the last 10 years which will end that network forever
Anyone who has watched CNBC for more than 20 minutes knows exactly what a bunch of whores, suck ups and suck offs the "talent" is on CNBC. The network is committing suicide. They need no help to end their careers.
Re: Dumbing down the content.
Having been on the street for 20+ yrs, I freely admitt that some of the content on ZH, flies right over my head. Oh well, I deal with it. Hey, we can all learn new stuff, right?
Here, Here! I agree. Some of us are learning this stuff here. Granted, we don't expect spoon feeding but some basic general info would help. It would also be helpful if the "Glossary" were truly a glossary instead of an Index. I went to look up "Black Swan" -- [yeah, I didn't know -- still don't, really -- what it is/was] and was directed to a bunch of posts instead.
I'm not a financial person but I am trying to understand it. FWIW, I've learned a lot here, at calculated risk, seeking alpha, NJReReport, and other sites. It's saved my financial ass.
That picture next to the name? That's Case-Shiller's HPI graph since 1890. That's the graph that kept me from buying a house in 2006. Thankfully!
I have commented on this before.
Quite often Tyler/Marla are preaching to the quire. Sadly if they want to reach a broader audience then the content has to be tailored to the intellect of the audience. Lets just say this is sad commentary on the American educational system. Joe Six pack could care less about the happenings on Wall Street and are more interested in their next American Idol "fix". If enough Joe Six packs loose their homes and livelihood maybe then they might be incited to do something about it. Note the maybe....
According to my sources Trig's father is not Sarah Palin's husband...Trig's real father is Charlie Gasparino!!
Ahhh, he's the cutest baby Sarah... and he looks JUST like you.
Thank you Zero Hedge for all you do and are.The recent attempts to erase free speech exemplified by the fuss over the image in cheeky bastards avatar sum up the need for anonymous posting nicely.They cannot kill the idea, but they desperately want to kill the messenger via ad hominum attacks.The frequency of the ad hominum's use today by the MSM is emblematic of it's complete ethical and moral bankruptcy.
Marla and Tyler...you rock.Keep it up and stay hidden!
This is, bar none, the best and most important website today.
Keep nuking them!!!
Beautifully written....I love it!
Thank you.
This piece hits the mark on so many levels. Given the great significance of today’s financial news, and the greater need for independent, lobby free voices, it would be a complete travesty for NYT not to print this.
If, drunk with the sight of power, we loose! (no need for my pill today, thanks Marla)
It's an excellent op-ed, but I agree with others who have encouraged you(all) not to get side-tracked by this bait tactic. Stick with what ZH does best and let the MSM waste time on irrelevancies. That is what they do best.
Who the fuck cares what the NYT thinks?
GFI; its not about that; its about introducing ZH to a wider audience via MSM outlet; consider this; if NYT prints this it would be like they killed themselves while trying to save themselves. Get it; its so deeply Sun-Tzu like i feel like a soldier :D
With all due respect to the echo chamber:
Personally, and Marla normally I enjoy your cynic wit, I think this is badly written, self-serving dribble and basically a puff-piece. The topic is apropos, but you missed the mark, and unfortunately an opportunity. Highly unlikely to be published as is, and IMO, for good reason. In fact, I would be embarrassed to have this published.
With all do respect to Anons everywhere, your opinions of how it should be done are at the very essence of the piece. If you would do it differently, you should, but of course the ends you seek would wholly be your own. So I think YOU should write an op-ed about how op-eds should be written, and see if it gets printed...
"I think this is badly written,"
WTF ??!! lol...
I don't know so much about econ/finance, but I can tell you, I know about English; in fact, I'm a bit of a syntax/grammar/spelling nazi.
You might disagree with the ideas contained in this piece, but badly written it AIN't.
In fact, it's one of the most beautifully written pieces of formal English I've seen online in quite awhile, and that includes the editorial pages of most of the major newspapers.
Amen.
Thank you, all of you.
Stay anonymous. Political oppo research and subsequent slimes would be minor compared to how they would attempt to destroy you if they discovered who you are.
Yes, yes, young Lady. But, the question we are really askin' is: are you the same Marla Singer that plays the music?. You see? We the corparate media are all about asking the tough, interesting questions to the right people!
...
Seriously: you rock Marla ! There is no hope for them. They are in their last act waving good bye. You guys are the next wave.
Can I get an A-men!
Hell yeah...AMEN!
Bravo. I care not who wrote the article unless credibility becomes an issue.
Facts stated should be verifiable by providing sources and that smacks in the face of the current day celebrity journalists who steadfastly reserve the right to keep their sources anonymous. I understand that issue as sometimes the source is the object of persecution. But when it comes to dealing with with facts, we should be able to look and see plainly the truth. The writer should point the direction to find that truth lest we be lazy and fail to see for ourselves.
It is where opinions are concerned that things get fuzzy. For that reason I do not have a television set and have not watched the daily news for the past few years. I just can't believe what they are saying most of the time.
There is nothing so powerful as an idea whose time has come. I have absolutely no idea where I would find all the information provided that appears "for free" on Zero Hedge. The information presented on Zero Hedge sheds a light into those dark little banking corners and lets people know until the end of days, what is going on.
I appreciate everything ZH writes. I couldn't care less if Zero Hedge is written by pen wieldling pit vipers ( http://www.fishgonebad.com/Stories/BISH/BISH2.htm ).
Great idea to propose an opinion article to the NYT, but could I make a suggestion:
The first paragraph or so contains a bit too much self-promotion about popularity of the blog etc.
I think it would be better to let somebody else do that promotion and to strike a more somber note for the opening paragraph, starting perhaps with the history of anonymous speech and so on.
-Jus7tme
Marla, I've pretty much hated everything you've written on zerohedge since you first started. Your writing usually irritated the hell out of me due to its self-indulgent tone and wordiness.
However, this piece was brilliant and well-written. I have a newfound respect for you. I sincerely hope this great writing continues. I think you really exposed the journalism industry for what it is, which is simply a means to self-promote and hopefully get that sweet tv deal like Oprah.
Let's hope this slap in the face to journalists will wake them up, just like zerohedge is flapping the faces of the financial industry.
Good work!
Hard to argue with anyone who uses an avatar from Harvey Birdman, Attorney At Law. Plus, who is to say which Marla it is that you hate?
Nah, my hate for you is over. The above article was that good. Keep up the good work!
Awesome. Your argument is perfect, and while for the most part its focus is on the finance community, it certainly applies to the state of liberty and journalism in the US in general.
Only a moron, or the MSM, would fail to realize the following:
By design, the government, abiding by The Constitution, protects individual voices, and thus ideas, from being squelched by powerful organizations such as the govt itself. In the absence of a government that abides by The Constitution, and the wholesale, willfull, and disgusting negligence exhibited by "the press", who will protect voices and ideas? The people themselves. Anonymity is simply a tactic.
The Constitution doesn't say anything about powerful organizations regarding the freedom of speech. It protects its citizens from the government infringing on the freedom of speech. That's all.
The Constitution doesn't prevent a private enterprise from firing an employee who believed he was using the "freedom of speech" even anonymously. This has nothing to do with the government following the Constitution to the letter.
Good point bald man! (Seriously, I'm actually not being sarcastic.) The amendments indeed say things like Congress Shall Make No Law, which is not the same as "No business shall bar its employees and customers from saying shit they don't like." One can only hope the government would have just about nothing to say about who is hired and fired anywhere anyway. I think people who yip about Freedom of speech, you know, while I'm sitting in YOUR livingroom telling you it's my right to call your wife a whore, are clearly missing the point of the bill of rights. All it says is the government will be hands off with regard to speech etc, not that everyone will be.
edit: to be more clear, I'm not saying that freedom of speech claims are bunk, with respect to the government quashing dissent and censoring things, but merely that with respect to private entities there is no such law governing ones rights to free speech on private property in private supervision, under private contract, etc.
Correct of course. Bad choice of words on my part.
I am referring to the goverment infringing on freedom of speech in order to protect powerful organizations, presumably those powerful organizations that have put the goverment in power.
A good Post. I agree fully with this sentiment and the blog as a whole.
One quibble is the vocal appearances of "Tyler Durden" recently.
Does this not dilute or confuse your stance on this issue?
If you have someone provide the voice of your anonymous associates doesn't this personalise yourself in the same way you wish to avoid? Granted it is similar to using pseudonyms as you have stated, but it could be a dangerous path to follow if you truly wish to keep things focused on content, as providing a voice instantly leads the listener to form an opinion about who a person and what they are like - it is a basic human trait that an opinion on a person is formed very quickly upon first meeting and hard to shake off afterwards.
And the instant speculation here and elsewhere about the ethnicity, nationality, class and background of the person who did those interviews shows how putting a voice to the figurehead changed the debate away from the subject matter, and posed a risk to the anonymity of the person speaking as Tyler.
Those issues aside, as the linked article from another anon posted by Tanta showed, by agreeing to an interview meant you gave up the freedom you have in blogging to open a debate and answer in depth any questions and criticisms that arise in a way that is controlled by both yourself and the participating respondants.
Instead you are at the mercy of questions you may not be able to adequately answer in a time frame that cannot be controlled by you, by a host that can steer the debate anyway he wishes, which at best could be benign but distracting the subject away from the point you are trying to make, or at worst distorting your viewpoint totally.
In short, trying to play the old media at their own game using their medium is akin to a 401k novice trader taking on GS, you can get lucky, but they have all the experience, cunning and big guns (or HFTS) to cut you down to size in the long run.
I hope you take this constructive criticism in the manner in which it is intended, and rethink your strategy with dealing with the MSM bullies.
We are very careful to pick our media venues, although you do bring up valid points.
I agree with the original poster. Look at Dennis Kneale's hitjob on the one blogger that decided to show up on his show. Look at how he distorted the truth as to what was said. He had an agenda and since he controls everything, he can control what you SEEM to say on his show, regardless of what you actually said.
No more interviews, if you have something to say, it should be said on this website. If someone wants to interview you, it should be done on your turf, not theirs.
yeh great anonymity.............. doesn't that also equate to no accountability for crappy calls? ie the fibonacci retardation posted a few days back
"... following weeks of criticism of our anonymity on CNBC and elsewhere... "
Elsewhere? I don't remember there being any elsewhere. I thought Dennis Kneale started some sh!t, and then Gaspirino and that dried up twat whatshername (she may as well be anon.) took a few shots at you. But that was it, as far as I recall. You're trying to cultivate an air of importance it does not merit.
As somebody famous somewhere once said... "Who gives a shit?"
Plasticos speaks...but does anyone care what a famous person has to say anymore?
Marla,
Definitely enjoyed your op-ed piece. Well-written, as usual. When's the novel coming out?
Who needs the NYT and their limited readership? Make this go viral. I have posted this as a link on a social networking site.
Anyone doubting the need for anonymous commentary that speaks to power need only read any historical account of the reactions of powerful governments and organizations against those they perceive as a threat. Furthermore, be assured that some of the most egregious incidents have never been publicly reported.
I hope ZH will keep a behind-the-scenes journal so we may read their story someday. Ubu.
The attack on your anonymity is entirely driven by fear. They fear what they do not understand. Keep up the good work.
I like watching the C(rony Socialist)NBC network for all that hard-hitting stuff that keeps their viewers informed about what a CEO's favorite color is, or how it feels to ride in a private jet to look down at the little people.
And you never have in-depth articles on strippers. Where are the strippers!!
MSM and tout TV are becoming more and more irrelevant.
Real information discussion and dissent occur away from MSM.
Keep up the good work, be skeptical, love your country and question and dislike MSM, authority and your government.
Cheers,
PS - stop watching TV - it frees the mind like nothing else
Tanta vive!
US tax dollars are spent to fund attacks on free speech and dissent. While a formidable foe, the truth will prevail.
Bravo.
Glad to see that Justice John Paul Stevens, a liberal, is quoted for protection of anonymity, re tyranny of the majority. Bashing liberals is an easy sport for many, but few people realize how much their rights have been safeguarded thanks to them. Zero Hedge has every right to remain anonymous.
Great piece. They better publish it soon, as they have no more assets to pledge or sell. A soon to be former newspaper.
That was extremely well written and completely covered your position and supported it.
I wish I could write like that... I have to laugh at your recounting of the reporter trying to work on your staff member. A reporter clueless to the reasoning of the anonymity policy. 1 dimensional thinkers, one and all in most of the media. Seymour Hersh or Robert Scheer would understand your position...
I have to admit I don't know much about your operation and I am a novice to finance... math is my academic realm. I come here to learn and I learn a lot reading this blog. I thought Tyler was one person's pen name and I have seen Marla and a couple of others. I did not realize there were numerous Tyler's.
That does explain to me why "Tyler" seems to come out of left field sometimes... there is a Tyler in left field, and right and center, etc.
Since I think context is important to help understand where an author is coming from, it would be helpful if there were separate pen names or group them by expertise. If I know Tyler 1 is the HFT guy or group, then I can keep their previous articles and positions in context not confusing them with the hyperbolic humorous Tyler 2, or the technical analyst Tyler 3...
Otherwise I support the anonymity for the same reasons you do... look how I sign my name..
Kudos to ALL the Marlas! Though super size it for this Marla post and the one who spins on ZH Radio if it is not the same Marla.
The DJ is 'Swedish Ice Princess Marla'. This was written by 'Sexy Librarian Marla'.
I wish there was also a mention of the dark side of anonymous exchange.
You are exactly right.
1. If you were a Republican in Obama's Chicago and voted in a primary, your trash would never again be picked up.
2. Bill O'Reilly gets audited every single year as does Rush.
3. As an owner of a talk radio station, let me tell you the pressure to change my format to Urban. Incredible.
4. No one will ever hire a snitch, if they can possibly help it.
Keep up the good work!
The NYT only wants 500 words for an op-ed. Ask Krugman. I believe you went almost 400 words over the limit. This is from memory, so I may be confusing editorials with op-eds.
Actually, their own "how to submit an Op-Ed" hints at 750 words, which is what I targeted.
Obviously, the attacks were imminent given your sudden success.
Atlhough I agree with your manifesto regarding anon(pseudon)ominity, implementing that policy effectively leaves you vulnerable to sophisticated attackers as the result of 2 policy decisions you will need to address.
Although you repeatedly cite the authors of the Federalist Papers as an example, it is clear to any one reading them, now or contemporaneously, that these were written by erudite authors presenting clearly reasoned arguments. That is sometimes the case at ZH, but more often, not so much. This vulnerabilty can be resolved with better editing.
The second, which I found amusing when I first visited here, but now find to be tiresome and self defeating is the choice of mascot.
The Federalists didn't publish under the name of a fictional phycopathic nihilist. Its just too much of a stretch for me to reconcile Tyler Durden with Thomas Payne. I don't know how you cure that vulnerability, but perhaps its not as significant to others as it is to me.
As you acknowledge, you are in the big leagues now. I believe you belong there and I wish you well. I'll continue to read in the belief that you are a gonzo Thomas Paine, but it requires an effort I'd rather spend supporting your clearly significant issues.
Good luck
Bravo!!!!!!!!
What is needed are facts, not personalities, and certainly not news anchors interpreting and forcing their views down our throats. I am tired of these anchors bringing in"experts" and not listening to them. Instead, the anchors not only ask the questions, but they answer them as well. And when the anchors don't get the answer they want, they argue with them or cut them off.
I was a loyal reader, and afflicted mourner. I should live 1000 years and aspire only to live up to her prose.
Marla,
Be all you can be, don't sell yoUrself short, NEVER
+1
You had me at hello...
Marla,
"Without the courageous and then-anonymous writings of, e.g., Thomas Paine or the authors of The Federalist Papers, our nation would be a very different place today."
Yes, but there is coming a time when we will need faces with names, men and women of stature. I am reminded of the genesis of The Bill of Rights. Virginia geographically divided the colonies, and a failure of Virginia to ratify would have mortally wounded the new nation. Patrick Henry and George Mason verbally blugeoned the statist Madison so severely that Virginia's ratification of the Constitution was called into question. Madison reluctantly agreed to introduce a bill of rights; absent this prominent and public opposition, there would be no P7M8 in your nightstand.
We will face such critical moments, and they will need to be dealt with publicly. For now, forcing the truth into the light must be done anonymously.
I read a significant portion of the NYT today, for the first time in several months. It was 99% fluff. The irrelevance of most of the "content" was mind-boggling. I certainly wouldn't feel slighted by their failure to print your Op-Ed. I read almost all of ZH's content EVERY day. Keep your focus, keep fighting the good fight.
Thank you.
An excellent essay, Marla, cogent and well witten. Which is precisely the NY Times most likely won't publish it.
I read "everything ZH" or try to everyday. Followed Tanta too and still do CR and NC with some Mish and BR thrown in. And a growing list of Seeking Alpha people who question the MSM lines. Anything questioning the status quo I can find. Been in the biz since '80 and started at a wire house by swallowing the koolaid and didn't even know it. I absolutely love this site and the attendees. Keep up the outstanding work!! BTW, I started in the field later than some and have been learning ever since, I'm 64 now but will try to keep up....
Wonderfully articulated. They're cowards if they don't print this!
I'm pretty hooked on Zero Hedge. I don't care who you are, I just like what you report & write about.
Awesome as usual Marla!
( By the way, to some of you out there, have you started noticing that some of the posts from certain Anony's are very similar to some of the posters with avatars? )
Bravo, well done, take a bow.
Fight Club (Zero Hedge) was the beginning, now it's moved out of the basement (Google's Blogger), it's called Project Mayhem (Project Fuck CNBC).
If they can't atttack your data, if they can't attack your conclusions, they will attack what they can. it is an attack of desperation nothing more. UNfortunately, I don't think it's suitable for publication due to structure and language. the information in the second to last paragraph needed to be in the first. The third paragraph needed to be the second. then the story of your growth and the problems with mainstream media. Then wanting to be judged by content, not personality driven, and free to say things the regular press is unable or unwilling to report.
I send your material to them on a regular basis and question their financial reporting.
Great posts and great op-ed. Hope it gets in. BUT, why the grey lady? I offer the Washinton Post as a better alternative. Right to the belly of the beast. In the back yard of it all.
I really do not understand what the issue is. It is a made up one. pseudonyms are common in literature. The sad fact is that major news outlets have beomce irrelevant prducts that are designed for the simplist common demominator and mass appeal. Look at all cable news. CNN used to be good, now maybe you can get bbc world. there are few places for long detailed extensive educating news anymore. the masses want their news in 30 second sound bursts
I don't know how I functioned so long without you folks. keep up the outstanding work and to hell with the angle biters.
Silence Dogood.
Thanks for all you do !!
I think the probability that your essay will be published is only slightly greater than 0%.
I say that because your essay points out exactly why their model is failing. They rely on prima donna journalists and opinion writers to sell papers and generate advertising dollars.
IMO, they have allowed their leftward bias in the op-ed pages to permeate the reporting. It's sad you have to wonder how objective the "newspaper of record's" reporting is because of their sharp leftward bias in the op-eds.
Hope your essay gets published, but I wouldn't hold out much hope.
Quitclaim deed was frigging hysterical. Nice.
I am so new to ZERO HEDGE, and am learning so much. I really like your website, it is very educating for a novice like me. Please keep your website going. Sincerely ............
I agree with "Anonymous Sun, 08/23/2009 - 16:11" regarding the editing. Good ideas in the op-ed but not good writing; you might try to establish a partnership with a stylish writer. Times readers would not enjoy the op-ed as submitted so there is no chance of it being published without a substantial rewrite. Tighten it up, then add some flair!
You idiot. I wasn't referring to the editing of the Op-Ed.
I was referring to editorial policies of the TDs.
If they are sincere about bolstering their increasingly facile claims that they have no other agenda other than presenting the facts, they need to do a more serious job of making that case by presenting facts clearly.
As to the second point concerning the psychotic mascot, Marla has laid waste to any remaining illusions that they are anything other than a bunch of gun toting loons with her remarks about cohabitation with her assault rifle. That plays well with the commenters here, but I think that pretty much makes this site toxic to anyone in the finance regulatory or finance press who takes the issues that ZH is shedding sunshine on seriously, and actually benefits the morons at CNBC and the MSM. Guns at town halls is disconcerting enough, Guns in finance blogs is just nuts.
We can't say they didn't warn us. ZH reminds us repeatedly of their policy with their enigmatic replies in the comments, in the manifesto and in criticisms from readers. "Trust noone not even us", is advice the finance folk who've already scaled the learning curve needed to decifer the postings don't need to be reminded of, its already in their DNA. So the warning is a wink to the unwary that they're being played, and to the wary, that's there's something else in play here besides exposing rampant abuse in financial marketes, yet apparently many of the commenters don't get it.
Who writes the Economist?
As I've said on my own blog (and feel free to Google it; I blog under my own name), I only understand about 40% of what I read here, and 99% of what I do understand scares me to death. I don't know whether that's an appropriate, proportional response or not. I do know that these days I am scared NOT to read ZH.
Marla (the one of you that wrote this piece), I hope you are paying no attention to the back-seat, hack-seat editors on this thread.
It is amusing to read people posing as arbiters of editoral quality deliver such cliched and vague advice. If they were really capable of a rewrite, they would rewrite the post (or whatever nefarious bit irks them) to prove it.
The piece is fine- no grafs need to be moved - it is short and to the point, and I assume the Times still has enough section and copy editors about to put a spit and polish on it--which is about all it needs.
Take it from someone who has slogged through piles of raw copy--the editors should be delighted to get a submission with half the clarity and focus of yours. Good luck.
The content on this site is just superb. I've been visiting for a month or so after wondering whether I was alone in smelling a rat. Expose and entertain in equal measure - please keep it up.
You have an audience wider than the US, I believe many online forums in Asia follow your posts.