By Felix Salmon
January 21, 2011

" data-share-img="" data-share="twitter,facebook,linkedin,reddit,google" data-share-count="true">

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities on the muni crisis — CBPP

AOL is a scam, selling internet access to elderly people who already have internet access — TBI

Goldman made its enormous stock and options award the day after announcing a huge loss — CNBC

Citigroup Defective-Loan Rate Improves to F+ — Bloomberg

“Words like shallow, facile, glib and slick are not insults to a journalist” — Guardian


We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see

So far, I agree with Tim Radford’s 6th point — Nobody has to read this crap.

Posted by flippant | Report as abusive

You know, I clicked the link to read the CNBC article and the first thing that I read (obviously) was the title. “How to Think About Goldman’s Financial Crisis Bonus”. I couldn’t read another word after that. I understand that it’s an editorial opinion piece, maybe even one with useful information. But there’s something that fundamentally rubs me the wrong way about an article that is literally telling me how to think.

Posted by spectre855 | Report as abusive

You are rubbed the wrong way rather too easily. The phrase “how to think about X” is a quite common idion. It generally means nothing more than “here are some points relating to X for your consideration”!

I just googled the phrase “how to think about” and got about 149 MILLION results. Near the tope …
How to think about QE2
How to … Keynesian economics
How to … oil spills

and so forth. Do you find it impossible to read ANYTHING with such a title???

Posted by Christofurio | Report as abusive

I think it depends on the subject material and the source. If the subject material is a highly political topic that deals with ethics coming from an admittedly biased source, then yes, that does rub me the wrong way. If the subject material is “how to think about microcomputing” at an MIT conference, then I see a bit of a difference there.

Posted by spectre855 | Report as abusive