Comments on: Wrong blogs are better than bad journalism http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/05/04/wrong-blogs-are-better-than-bad-journalism/ A slice of lime in the soda Sun, 26 Oct 2014 19:05:02 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.5 By: manas petroleum http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/05/04/wrong-blogs-are-better-than-bad-journalism/comment-page-1/#comment-1621 Fri, 15 May 2009 12:00:04 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/05/04/wrong-blogs-are-better-than-bad-journalism/#comment-1621 What are the techniques for equity research?

]]>
By: Michael Castro http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/05/04/wrong-blogs-are-better-than-bad-journalism/comment-page-1/#comment-1506 Sat, 09 May 2009 20:42:04 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/05/04/wrong-blogs-are-better-than-bad-journalism/#comment-1506 The main issue here is credibility. Newspapers and news network have established credibility by broadcasting to a large audience. Credibility is sometimes confused with the size of the media outlet or news source. A blog being an independent source of information has limited audience. You don’t see a blog in the corner or in a TV set therefore people don’t tend to give them much credibility. That will change as people discover blogs, the new media capability and access to internet becomes widely available.

]]>
By: The Epicurean Dealmaker http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/05/04/wrong-blogs-are-better-than-bad-journalism/comment-page-1/#comment-1185 Mon, 04 May 2009 15:04:01 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/05/04/wrong-blogs-are-better-than-bad-journalism/#comment-1185 In fact, Felix, you might say that an important function blogs serve is to lower the barrier to and widen the distribution of dissent and/or attempts to correct the record. This can be directed at both anointed authorities in the mainstream media and one’s fellow bloggers.

For my part, I began blogging initially as an outlet for my reactions to current events and news articles and opinion pieces in the MSM. I tended to think of it as my own, uncurated Letters to the Editor page which did not require approval by any mainstream outlet and which could theoretically spread my voice wider than any one news organ.

In addition to lowering the bar for comment by true subject matter experts, of course, you get a lot of ludicrous troll-sniping and poorly-researched and hastily published dreck, but dems da breaks. I also worry that it will be hard to maintain a healthy and diverse blogosphere if we do not figure out a sustainable economic model, too.

]]>
By: Jon Jacobs http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/05/04/wrong-blogs-are-better-than-bad-journalism/comment-page-1/#comment-1184 Mon, 04 May 2009 14:14:48 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/05/04/wrong-blogs-are-better-than-bad-journalism/#comment-1184 For OPINION and ANALYSIS – the only areas Felix is really dealing with in this post – he makes a good case that you’ll do better to read the BEST bloggers than most (or all) mainstream-media commentators.

But going from there to the broader thesis (encapsulated in his headline) requires leaps of logic, which the above post does not come close to achieving. To wit:

1. You’ve got to select the right blogger(s). Mainstream media carries something like a uniform seal of approval – there is a narrowly defined range of quality among top news organizations’ reporters, editors and commentators, which limits the volatility. I use that word advisedly, because I now propose an interesting analogy: getting your analysis from the media is like indexing, and relying on the blogosphere is like active management. If and only if you can identify managers with “skill” (peer-reviewed work by Ibbotson and others has shown how difficult that is, even given decades of audited performance data), can you expect to outperform the indexes. Identifying well-informed, smart and trustworthy bloggers isn’t as hard as identifying skillful equity managers…but you shouldn’t assume it’s a trivial task, either.

2. The blogosphere, the Internet generally, and even the mainstream media are awash in opinion and analysis. What everyone who champions blogging seems to always conveniently ignore, however, is that opinion without facts is worse than no information at all. And even the best bloggers are and will remain dependent on a separate infrastructure of fact-gathering and reporting, for the raw material (facts) on which to base their opinions. That infrastructure can either consist of a systematically replenished corps of trained, paid and independent professionals – a.k.a. a journalism industry. Or – as bloggers seem to prefer (by default) – it can consist of a formless blob of self-interested rumor mills, blowhards, spoofers and pranksters, untrained and uneducated volunteers … augmented in some degree by outsourced “reporters” earning 3 cents a word (roughly $8 per hour, according to an estimate given me last Friday by an editor who hires contractors to blog on his business news site).

Take your pick.

]]>
By: Ed http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/05/04/wrong-blogs-are-better-than-bad-journalism/comment-page-1/#comment-1182 Mon, 04 May 2009 13:23:24 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/05/04/wrong-blogs-are-better-than-bad-journalism/#comment-1182 The media has adopted the same strategy as the political parties: Create a lie from half truths and innuendo, see how far it gets you. Use it to create discord and controversy to attract attention. Attention means ratings. Ratings mean money. If you don’t get caught build upon the lie and point to the previous lie as a basis for the second lie. If you get caught simply retract, divert the attention or make a different lie. Good lies always incorporate some aspects of the truth. Soon the truth becomes so convoluted by the half truths and lies, opinions evolve into the basis for truth. Opinions are like…well we all have one. The real question is whose opinions are we expressing? Our own personal opinions derived from a personal analysis of the available data? Opinions based on the data available to us via sources that may or may not be based on the actual facts; facts that may or may not be accurate but simply part of the lie. Or are the opinions we express merely the opinions of others who pay some to espouse their opinions as their own? I suggest you consider the source and the veracity of the data you ingest and regurgitate as your opinion. The essential question remains. Who can you believe?

]]>
By: albatross http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/05/04/wrong-blogs-are-better-than-bad-journalism/comment-page-1/#comment-1179 Mon, 04 May 2009 13:02:16 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/05/04/wrong-blogs-are-better-than-bad-journalism/#comment-1179 There are at least three advantages of a blog by an expert over a newspaper:

a. You’re getting the expert’s opinions directly, not filtered through the journalist’s misunderstandings, and then edited for length by an editor who knows less than the journalist.

b. The expert is usually writing for both laymen and other experts. If he says something careless or stupid or lies to you to achieve some other goal, he’s doing that in front of his colleagues, who will end up with a lower opinion of him as a result.

c. Most bloggers aren’t in a position to be useful channels of propoganda or spin, and so they aren’t usually targets of the elaborate media-control techniques that the white house and some large companies use.

Ideally, the advantage of a newspaper should be that it has a long-term reputation for accuracy to keep up. But I’ve spent the last several years noticing almost constant examples of journalists getting all the details wrong in areas where I knew enough to care about the story, and many cases where a lot of the newspaper and TV news coverage of some issue is obviously being spun in a certain direction. (Remember the MSM discussions of the threat from Iraq during the runup to the war?) So while individual journalists sometimes have some reputation capital, few of the big news sources do.

]]>
By: HAL http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/05/04/wrong-blogs-are-better-than-bad-journalism/comment-page-1/#comment-1175 Mon, 04 May 2009 10:58:13 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/05/04/wrong-blogs-are-better-than-bad-journalism/#comment-1175 Felix:

Surely you realize that if a bank is insolvent (that is, assets/liabilities < 1) then the infusion of debt capital enhances solvency as it brings A/L closer to 1.

You’re right about keeping preferred around, though.

Also, why are we listening to Henry Blodget? Does he think my amazon stock is going back to 400 a share?

HAL

]]>
By: Mike http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/05/04/wrong-blogs-are-better-than-bad-journalism/comment-page-1/#comment-1173 Mon, 04 May 2009 08:25:27 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/05/04/wrong-blogs-are-better-than-bad-journalism/#comment-1173 I found that newspapers like the NYT or WSJ make numerous mistakes in areas where I’m an expert. I have to assume that they are just as bad in areas where I’m not an expert. So, I concluded long ago that one simply can’t trust newspapers to get it right. I prefer an expert blog to a newspaper any day. Picking the right blog for any particular subject area is not trivial, but the process itself is helpful.

]]>
By: Don the libertarian Democrat http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/05/04/wrong-blogs-are-better-than-bad-journalism/comment-page-1/#comment-1169 Mon, 04 May 2009 06:08:33 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/05/04/wrong-blogs-are-better-than-bad-journalism/#comment-1169 I’m having a hard time figuring out what people are proposing. First of all, from The Economics Of Contempt:

“The whole point of Treasury’s proposed resolution authority is to extend the FDIC’s systemic risk exception to the insolvency regime that governs large bank holding companies (e.g., Citigroup, BofA, JPMorgan, Wells Fargo). If there’s no systemic risk finding, failed bank holding companies will still be handled by the bankruptcy courts. Treasury’s proposal gives the government the same kind of discretion in cases of systemic risk that the FDIC has under the Federal Deposit Insurance Act.”

Here’s the plan:

“March 25, 2009
tg-70

Treasury Proposes Legislation for Resolution Authority

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner on Monday called for new legislation granting additional tools to address systemically significant financial institutions that fall outside of the existing resolution regime under the FDIC. A draft bill will be sent to Congress this week and several key features are highlighted below.

The legislative proposal would fill a significant void in the current financial services regulatory structure and is one piece of a comprehensive regulatory reform strategy that will mitigate systemic risk, enhance consumer and investor protection, while eliminating gaps in the regulatory structure. ”

So the govt is moving towards being able to seize the large banks, but they don’t have the power as of yet. That leaves you with various alternatives, one of which is owning more of the stock, and running the company. This would have a few problems, in that we could still lose a lot of money, and foreign investors and companies will consider us owning the bank to be guaranteeing it. As far as I know, there will still be other shareholders, and they will have certain rights. It could also involve us in foreign politics, as in Mexico with Banamex. Still, it might be better than the current plan.

Now, I thought that this is what Stiglitz and Krugman were proposing, as well as anyone who was complaining that we were investing money but not getting control. After reading Blodget and Krugman, it would be nice to have a clear explanation of exactly what they’re proposing. Are they saying that all creditors would becoming shareholders, but we’d control the bank, because we’ll have more shares? How is that done? What exactly is the alternative to what Geithner’s doing?

]]>