Someone sent me an FT headline to show me that my WSJ postmisses the mark.” To demonstrate that it wasn’t just the WSJ that succumbed to political bias, I was referred to this FT article: Investors fret over Obama’s bank assault.

Not quite as egregious as the WSJ’s New Bank Rules Sink Stocks, but certainly worth investigating.

Would I have to add the FT to our growing collection of media criticism (WSJ and NYT). I went to the link and read the article. It turns out no. Consider this context within the FT piece:

The Market Eye

“Let’s keep this in perspective. The US stock market advances 70 per cent from its lows in less than 11 months, leading some to claim the rally is overdone. Support for riskier assets from a falling dollar is whipped away as the buck shows evidence of reversing its trend decline. Signs emerge that China, the engine of global growth, is overheating and may require a risky application of the brakes. Concerns increase that a number of European countries are teetering on the fiscal precipice. And the US earnings season delivers a response from traders that suggests all the good news is already baked in.

With all this going on, it was perhaps surprising that stocks were hovering near 15-month highs as recently as Tuesday. They were ripe for a pull-back, and unexpected (?) events such as the Obama banking proposals provide a wonderful excuse.

But this is a banking thing. The idea that the New Wall Street, should it come to pass, will restrict economic activity sounds like spin emanating from the canyons of lower Manhattan. Equities are just 3.5 per cent below those recent peaks.”

That, dear readers, is what an intelligent, partisan-free, market diascussion looks like. That balance is precisely what was missing from the front page WSJ article.

Those of you who are partisans, I can only tell you that in my experience, mixing politics with investing is both foolhardy and expensive.

Look around at who made money during the “Obama Rally:” I know a disproportionate number of the people who missed this 70% market spike leaned Republican. But stupidity knows no party affiliation, and after the 2003 George W. Bush trillion dollar tax cut was passed, there was also a huge rally — and many of the ones who missed that one leaned Democratic. This is no coincidence — it is a function of bias and selective perception and an investing strategy co-opted by politics.

Perhaps this helps explain to everyone else why balanced financial reporting is so helpful to investors . . .

>

Previously:
WSJ Jumps the Shark (January 22, 2010)
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2010/01/wsj-jumps-the-shark

The WSJ Responds (January 22, 2010)
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2010/01/wsj-another-view/

Source:
Investors fret over Obama’s bank assault
Jamie Chisholm
FT, January 22 2010
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/59a631a8-0720-11df-a9b7-00144feabdc0.html

Category: Markets

Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Be sure to create straw men and argue against things I have neither said nor implied. If you could repeat previously discredited memes or steer the conversation into irrelevant, off topic discussions, it would be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse . . . you are, after all, anonymous.

43 Responses to “What Balanced Market Reporting Looks Like”

  1. jpm says:

    Thanks for fighting this fight, Barry.
    The WSJ editors clearly need a kick in the ass to remember why people bother picking up (or clicking on) a WSJ as opposed to any other undifferentiated news outlet.

  2. Minderbender says:

    So the next big picture trend question for investors is: if the Tea Party populism that has emerged is beyond mere astroturfing, how will this apparent backlash, as evidenced in New Jersey and Massachusetts, and likely to color our news in upcoming 10 months, typically influence the investor (progressive, liberal, libertarian, or conservative), i.e., how will it cloud our respective visions? What do we need to watch out for?

    Barry, you have an interesting thesis here – what it your take? Specific advice for each case?

  3. Gatsby says:

    What Balance (and Intelligent) Market Commentary Looks Like: The Big Picture Blog

    Well done Barry! The hacks, partisans and politicos need to be countered with what is in effect Kyrptonite to them: reason

  4. austincompany says:

    Though everyone is for “balanced” (financial) reporting, what is balanced or bias is often in the eye of the beholder. Though you direct your ire to political parties via financial rags, the same bias reporting can be said for bullish or bearish sentiment.

    And there is no doubt much more bias (re: unbalanced) reporting in regards to the economy – Keynesian vs. Austrian economic models. So try as we might to end all “bias” reporting, it is an absolutely impossible task – as there is either fact or opinion. And since most of life and business is mostly “gut” and opinion, the Pandora world of fair and balanced will never happen. What is important is that we recognize what is fact and what is opinion.

  5. YY says:

    Right on spot BR.

    For those who want to tell balanced from unbalanced reporting, simply put the FT and WSJ reports of the same event side by side. As BR did above.

    The nuanced discussion of things is left wanting in WSJ, while most columns in FT have a level headed discussion of things. Mind you, the Economist, from the same publisher does not quite have the quality of reporting.

  6. From Barron’s today (owned by the same people who own WSJ):

    THE STOCK MARKET’S 5% DROP in the final three sessions of the holiday-shortened week couldn’t be ascribed entirely to the proposed curbs on banks. Indeed, the market rallied Tuesday on the prospect that Brown’s anticipated victory would be a tonic to health-care stocks, but there was more at work.

    “The Volcker Rule, central banks’ exit strategies, expected fiscal tightening, growing concerns about Greece (26% probability of default priced in) and China’s credit bubble have produced a headwind of negative news in a market that is priced for a surplus of positive news,” writes Lena Komileva, head of G7 Economics for Tullett Prebon in London. “It is no surprise that the damage across risk markets is spreading like bushfire.”

    Ahead of Friday’s 2% drop on Wall Street, the U.S. stock market had been among the least hard-hit, according to the BofA/Merrill Lynch global strategy team led by Michael Hartnett. Thursday, China was down 14% from recent highs, while Spain was off 11%, Brazil was down 10% and Germany was lower by 8%.

    The correction didn’t begin with Obama’s politically motivated bank rules. The global liquidity pump that pushed up asset prices more than real economies is being turned down. And that points to lower prices for risk assets, from domestic equities to commodities to emerging markets. But it should translate to further strengthening of the dollar, which won’t be positive for all those investors falling over themselves to buy global mutual funds.

  7. Transor Z says:

    @minderbender:

    Play fantasy baseball. It’s a quick and relatively inexpensive way to suss out your home team bias. If you don’t do any research/analysis and rely only on drafting players you know and like from your home team (and pass on players from hated rivals), you lose.

  8. huesos says:

    Barry.. I’m just curious as to how you substantiate your claims that Republicans missed the Obama rally while Dems missed the Bush tax cut rally. It almost seems too cute to be factual and as far as I know, neither you nor my broker know my political affiliation if any.

  9. huesos:

    You overstate what I am implying: Of the people who missed each rally, their political affiliation seems to me to have been a factor: Disproportionately, lefties missed the W rally, Disproportionately, righties missed the O rally. Coincidence? I do not believe so.

    It is based on personal observation of anecdotal evidence.

    Of the circle of my colleagues and professional peers, I have a good idea of who is what politically. I also know who missed what (many of these folk’s track records are public info).

    Add to that the mix of politics I see: Speaking generally, in NYC, the population leans left. In the suburbs (Long Island, Westchester, Connecticut N.NJ), its center right. Wall Street, also leans right — at least in terms of tax policy and regulation. This is the pool I am observing (plus whoever I know over the internet).

    Hardly scientific — what the hell is “Leans?” — but surprisingly consistent from what I witnessed.

  10. Mannwich says:

    Amazing. The O man basically enacts a massive handout (biggest in world’s history) to the jackals that caused this mess. They then pump the market so that it goes up for basically 10 straight months in a straight line in a rally of epic proportions, allowing them collect enormous bonuses again, and now after a 5% three-day miniscule drop (relative to the rally), the whiner welfare queens on Wall Street come out of the woodwork and hammer the O man for it. You just gotta love these vultures. It’s no wonder this country is where it is. I used to think the country was being run by sociopaths. I was wrong. We’re being run by psychopaths.

  11. the bohemian says:

    “They . . .pump the market so that it goes up for basically 10 straight months in a straight line in a rally of epic proportions, allowing them collect enormous bonuses . . . and after a 5% three-day miniscule drop (relative to the rally), the whiner welfare queens on Wall Street come out of the woodwork and hammer the O man for it. ”

    classic shit there manny- fucking douche bags aren’t they?

  12. Mannwich says:

    @bohemian: Yes, of epic proportions. The hubris, arrogance, intellectual dishonesty, and unparalleled douchebaggery of these psychopaths is just mind blowing. I can’ t be the only one who finds this utterly appalling.

  13. Mannwich says:

    Fundamentally, I don’t really have a problem with re-enacting the uptick rule, but does anyone else find this a bit humorous considering the timing of it on the heels of a little 3-day decline right after a massive 10 month+ rally? Why not just pass a rule that the markets can never go down again? That way we can all be “rich” on worthless paper assets and be done with it.

    http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2010/01/sec-proposes-very-limited-reintroduction-of-uptick-rule-on-short-selling.html

  14. par1 says:

    A propos WSJ’s (not so) hidden agenda, what do you make of this latest piece of BS?

    Wall Street’s Pay Shift Augurs Ill for Stockholders

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703822404575019492395211092.html

  15. Greg0658 says:

    in the days before TBP entered my consciousness ..
    “DOW losses 513 points in yr2010 wk3″ ..
    would seem bad .. like the American GDP is flushing down the toliet
    but now I realize the headline actually is
    “DOW transfers 513points into investments elsewhere”

  16. strousd says:

    Hey Barry, who cares what the WSJ says? I don’t get my investment advice from them, do you? Most of the writers for the WSJ and other publications have never invested money before, and most of the time they are just parroting information they get from Wall Street and the investment community. It’s not like anybody ever knows with 100% certainty why the market does what it does. I thought the market tanked last week because there were more sellers than buyers, but what do I know. It seems to me that your rant was much adieu about nothing. Given the clear liberal bias in the mainstream media, it’s amusing that you chose to complain about the WSJ.

    I disagree with your comments about mixing politics and investing to a certain extent. In the long run, investors need to make correct judgments about the direction of government policies and their impact on the economy and investment markets. This requires political analysis. Decisions made by politicians impact the long-term growth of the private sector, inflation and interest rates, and tax consequences for investors. If the liberal wing of the Democratic Party has its way, we will see expansion of government at the expense of the private sector, an explosion in government borrowing that will crowd out private borrowing, the repeal of the Bush tax cuts in 2011, potential taxes of stock transactions, etc. If this scenario comes to fruition, will it be good for investors?

  17. There is a huge difference between objectively contemplating the impact of potential future legislation on your portfolio, and what I have been discussing: Rampant partisan infection of the analytical process to the investors detriment.

    Further, my experience has been the “liberal bias” of the modern media is a canard — what I see is not so much of a left/right bias as a pro-status quo bias by the corporate owned media.

    Consider the corporate interests who own various outlets:

    GE: NBC, MSNBC, CNBC,
    Disney: ABC, ESPN,
    Viacom: CBS, MTV, COMEDY CENTRAL, MTV, NICKELODEON, SPIKE, VH1, PARAMOUNT PICTURES
    Fox: WSJ, Fox News, Barrons, Marketwatch
    WP Co: Washington Post, Slate, Kaplan
    NYT Co: NYT, Boston Globe
    Time Warner: Time, CNN, HBO, TBS, Warner Bros, Cartoon Network, Entertainment Weekly, Fortune, Golf Magazine, In Style, Money, People, Sports Illustrated, This Old House
    Conde Nast: Architectural Digest, Golf Digest, The New Yorker, Vanity Fair, Wired, etc.

    What these firms specialize in is Bread & Circuses, providing distraction for the masses from the real world.

    I believe they are interested in profitability, low cost usage of public assets (airwaves, monopoly cable), and extending copyright laws (so they never have to allow material to return to the public domain as per the US constitution). I don’t believe they give a rats ass about left or right — as long as their profits are protected, and friendly legislation heads their way.

    ~~~

    Strousd: Based on the talking points you reference, I assume you have a political leaning and will shrug off my comments. My detailed response is to those investors who care about their assets more than they do partisan party politics.

  18. foxmuldar says:

    huesos Says:

    January 23rd, 2010 at 7:24 pm
    Barry.. I’m just curious as to how you substantiate your claims that Republicans missed the Obama rally while Dems missed the Bush tax cut rally. It almost seems too cute to be factual and as far as I know, neither you nor my broker know my political affiliation if any

    Its the Liberal media that continues to harp about Republicans having all the money. If the market was up 70% in such a short time, who was doing all that buying? I think huesos is on to something.

    I also think that insiders perhaps at GS and other big firms got wind of what Obama was about to say about the banks, and they took advantage of the drop to the downside. After all Geithner and Bernanke and others in the Obama club have close ties to the fat cats on wallstreet. Well 10000 on the Dow sure looks like strong support for now. If the unemployment numbers keep getting worse, which I expect they will, then I doubt 10,000 will hold. JMOP

    ~~~

    BR: Really? That’s your argument? The “Liberal media harps about Republicans having all the money.”

    Thats pretty lame . . .

  19. Anyone see the release put out by Dodd and Gregg saying Bernanke will be confirmed? Sounds fishy doesn’t it? Kind of like all those late Sunday nonsense from Paulson before the Asian markets opened.

  20. Mike in Nola says:

    Calvin: I suppose if Bernanke is reconfirmed there will be a big rally because the TBTF’s can expect another trillion dollars of zero interest money to buy equity and commodities.

    Come to think of it, since Bernanke’s printing press has been one of the major drivers of the recent rally, it makes more sense to attribute the drop over the past week to doubts about Bernanke’s continued presence and the possibility of a Tall Paul protege casting one of the Tablets down onto the pagans of Wall Street who have built an idol of gold..

  21. Mannwich says:

    Good point, Mike. Whither QE in and free play money for Wall Street in the face of the race for the populist vote in the wake of Scott Brown’s surprise victory?

  22. Transor Z says:

    Anyone see the release put out by Dodd and Gregg saying Bernanke will be confirmed? Sounds fishy doesn’t it? Kind of like all those late Sunday nonsense from Paulson before the Asian markets opened.

    Calvin, yes — really makes you wonder whether that was even targeted at the domestic audience, huh?

  23. rootless_cosmopolitan says:

    So now everyone who missed the huge bear market rally, which has been fueled by liquidity pumping, but not really supported by economic fundamentals, is just stupid in the eyes of the great market timer Barry Ritholtz. There have been very good reasons to be skeptical of this rally, which haven’t had anything to do with any political bias. And not everyone is into market timed trading.

    Delusions of grandeur usually come before the fall.

    rc

  24. rileyx67 says:

    Of whatever “scientific value”(?…have beneath the glass atop my desk, a list of “pundits” and their “records” per “guru grades” and other “records”, including a number of those who Barry “Respects”…and that list is helpful in determining whom to disregard and save some time from so much noise. Too many of those in the well below 50% accuracy group also have the comment “politics” alongside, so BR’s comment IS valid. Yes, we DO need to consider “politics” in future direction of the Economy, and therefore its effect on the markets, but the political LEANINGS of a pundit (so often so obvious) are an an absolute dismissal for me!

  25. Mike in Nola says:

    I had forgotten to mention that I have a subsrcription to the FT courtesy of some old Continental frequent flyer points.

    I have found it to be a cut above all the other financial reporting I’ve seen. I suppose because it spends a lot on financial reporters and not big boobed bimbos. Yeah, some of the opinions turn out to be wrong as opinions often do, but you generally get a rational view and both sides of every issue as in the quote above. You also get a lot of facts in the bargain.

    Some of the letters are interestng also, since it it read by thinkers.

  26. Scott F says:

    I got the entire 2003 rally-from memory, my long-short portfolios (running separate accounts then) were up 30% (S&P up 28, as I recall), and my long only up 40%. As you know, I missed this baby. I think I can reasonably defend the proposition that my recent stupidity was unrelated to politics (as an O supporter), as was my genius in 2003 (As a W detractor).

    From your post:

    Look around at who made money during the “Obama Rally:” I know a disproportionate number of the people who missed this 70% market spike leaned Republican. But stupidity knows no party affiliation, and after the 2003 George W. Bush trillion dollar tax cut was passed, there was also a huge rally – the ones who missed that one leaned Democratic. This is no coincidence – it is a function of bias and selective perception and an investing strategy co-opted by politics.

  27. Scott,

    My comments were directed to those people who allowed their politics to infect their investing strategy.

    I did not mean to imply 100% of those who missed were of any one party — I’ll edit this in above(caps below) “AND MANY OF”

    Look around at who made money during the “Obama Rally:” I know a disproportionate number of the people who missed this 70% market spike leaned Republican. But stupidity knows no party affiliation, and after the 2003 George W. Bush trillion dollar tax cut was passed, there was also a huge rally – “AND MANY OF” the ones who missed that one leaned Democratic. This is no coincidence – it is a function of bias and selective perception and an investing strategy co-opted by politics

    The point isn’t who missed what, it is about what effects your process . . .

  28. sundaraz says:

    Gene Epstein from Barron’s is another one of them, who gets most of the stuff wrong because of his affiliations.

  29. Greg0658 says:

    sort of on topic .. BR will be most interested .. I was surf’g with my laptop & caught this thread:
    http://www.buzzmachine.com/2010/01/17/the-right-to-link/

    “Linking is more than merely a function and feature of the internet. Linking is a right. The link enables fair comment. It powers the link economy that will sustain media. It is a tool for accountability. It is the keystone to free speech online.
    But News Corporation has made good on its threat to fight the link, preventing the UK aggregator NewsNow from linking to several of its newspaper sites.”

    … but SCOTUS and the Established Estates prevail

  30. bsneath says:

    BR Says:

    Further, my experience has been the “liberal bias” of the modern media is a canard — what I see is not so much of a left/right bias as a pro-status quo bias by the corporate owned media.

    That is because you come from one of the most liberal places in America, most of your friends and associates are liberal, much of the media resides in your City and shares your philosophies and thus the media simply reflects your personal belief system, which as an “objective and rational individual” could not possibly be biased.

    Now think back to your past dissertations regarding how folks selectively process information and data in order to justify their preordained view of the world around them and you will understand why you feel the “liberal bias” of the modern media is a canard while much of the rest of the country clearly sees a liberal bias. What is unfortunate is the media has polarized into extremes just as has much of society.

  31. bsneath –

    Your talking points reveal biases. Do you really believe:

    -NYC is a place of uniform thought
    -all of my colleagues are lefties/liberals
    -there is no broad spectrum of ideas;
    -any independent thought is a mirage;
    -everyone here thinks like the media that resides here;

    What a silly stereotype.

    Now the facts are:

    1. NYC is a vibrant city with a broad spectrum of political viewpoints — it leans left, but it also elected Rudy G as a mayor 2X, and Mike Bloomberg 3X.

    2. My partners are staunch GOP supporters, my friends range across the political spectrum. The closest friends of my wife and I are very senior in the Conservative party in NYS (He’s a judge, she’s senior at a major media shop).

    3. My reputation has been built on my independence.

    4. I have been on Glenn Beck’s show, been on shows with Judge Napolitano, and on countless times with Larry Kudlow.

    5. I presented to American Spectator in front of room with the creme de la creme of Right wing political and media representatives.

    6. I am CONSTANTLY fighting against my own bais. That’s half the point of these posts, as well as my mea culpas.

    Your beliefs are belied by these facts, but the point of these posts are that those same beliefs prevent you from everseeing these facts.

    So I repeat once again: I offer this to the readership, as I expect the partisans will have a hard time seeing anything that conflict with their previous expectations/world views.

  32. howard0339 says:

    Back when I was a broker trading client money I immediately put any “advisor,” analyst, tout on my junk list as soon as any political banter appeared in their writing. Not that the “pure” that remained were any more correct than the others……

  33. and after the 2003 George W. Bush trillion dollar tax cut was passed, there was also a huge rally

    really have to respectfully disagree with your characterization of the 2003 rally. The threat of war with Iraq created an uncertainty that weighed over the market throughout the winter of 2002-03. It was only after it became apparant that the Iraqi invasion was going to be a cakewalk and there would be no diasters such as Iraqi use of chemical weapons or the war spreading to Saudi or Israel that the market took off. By the time Bush signed the tax cuts at the end of May, the S&P had already rallied almost 19% from the pre-invasion March low. The tax cuts may have extended/deepened the rally, but to infer that the tax cuts were followed by a rally, implying causation, ignores that fact that there was already a huge rally (20% in 2 months!) already underway

    ~~~

    BR: All of that is true, but I heard from many Dem leaning friends what a poorly constructed tax cut this was, and why any gains would not last.

  34. max says:

    Disproportionately, lefties missed the W rally, Disproportionately, righties missed the O rally. Coincidence? I do not believe so.

    Well, I didn’t miss the 2003 rally and I voted against George Bush twice and voted for Obama. I got in very early 2003, and got out again in 2004. And stayed out. I stayed out here, and I intend to keep staying out.

    I wasn’t objecting to people getting in this year, I was bother by people taking the stance that March represented the absolute bottom for pretty much forever, or at least another 5-10 years, and therefore going all in on the long-term buys. If that nominal bottom does represent the actual nominal bottom, hoo boy. The bottom in real terms should be ugly. (The market didn’t bottom in 1980, it bottomed in 1982, along with the economy.)

    (At any rate, what with the whole state-propped banking sector, trying to profit off the deal is so banana republic, that really it seems like a good time to move everything to Europe. Not, to be fair, that we haven’t spent all decade as a banana Republic, what with Imperator George and all.)

    max
    ['At any rate, congrats to the persons skimming those short-term returns. Well done.']

  35. Greg0658 says:

    ditto “congrats to those persons” .. ya good luck export’g into real ..
    build us a new economy please .. please with brown sugar on top

  36. foxmuldar says:

    Mannwich Says:

    January 23rd, 2010 at 8:53 pm
    This is worth a read.

    http://www.zerohedge.com/article/wall-street-journal-systemic-threat-posed-quants

    Mannwich, thanks for that link. I really enjoyed reading the article. What a midnight thriller and perhaps a movie in the works.

  37. bsneath says:

    BR – I was responding to your statement that “the “liberal bias” of the modern media is a canard”.

    “Canard – An unfounded or false, deliberately misleading story.”

    I will apologize for the broad brush of my rant. I reacted to the inference that “liberal bias” is a deliberately misleading characterization of the media. Perhaps before I flew off the handle (at what I perceived to be a liberally-biased statement about liberal media bias), I should have asked you to elaborate.

    I did stereotype that you are influenced by your environment and beliefs (just as undoubtedly I am of mine and just as journalists are of theirs). I know from your past postings you are well aware of how the human mind processes and screens information and that you are on guard against bias-tendencies. I am also (believe it or not).

    I agree with your observations regarding the biases of the corporate owners of media. The firewalls that once protected their news organizations seem to be breaking down and corporate interests who have really just one bias – making money – are infiltrating. I think this is why so many bloggers have expressed a disgust with NBC news products – the feeling that Immelt and GE were steering the discussion and perhaps even silencing those who spoke out contrary to corporate interests.

    Nevertheless I will take issue with any statement that the perception of “liberal bias” within the media is a deliberate misrepresentation, just as I will also take issue with anyone who states that FOX News does not have a “conservative-bias”. And yes, I would likely stereotype that person to be a conservative. Wouldn’t you as well?

    Gallup Poll: Media Seen as ‘Too Liberal,’ Untrustworthy
    By: Rich Noyes
    October 05, 2009 14:48 ET
    http://www.mrc.org/biasalert/2009/20091005025345.aspx

  38. Appreciate the sentiment — Most of the nuance in these debates get lost. For example, studies show that at MSM outlets, writers tend more left, editors tend more right. How does that affect the output of content?

    To me, the bias remains most profoundly not politics, but protecting their turf, maintaining the gravy train — tho as that ends, it will be fun watching what happens.

    One last thing — I don’t consider Fox News a media outlet — they are little more than the house organ of the GOP. I am coming around tot he view that Murdoch is working against some of the basic precepts of democracy. And if anyone wants to say the same thing about MSNBC (tho on a much smaller scale), I won’t argue.

  39. Scott F says:

    FAIR did a survey some years ago that surprised many people:

    • On select issues from corporate power and trade to Social Security and Medicare to health care and taxes, journalists are actually more conservative than the general public.

    • Journalists are mostly centrist in their political orientation.

    • The minority of journalists who do not identify with the “center” are more likely to identify with the “right” when it comes to economic issues and to identify with the “left” when it comes to social issues.

    • Journalists report that “business-oriented news outlets” and “major daily newspapers” provide the highest quality coverage of economic policy issues, while “broadcast network TV news” and “cable news services” provide the worst.

    Call it working the refs: There has been a deliberate and in my opinion, successful attempt over the years to portray the MSM as more liberal than it is. Many people take it for granted as real, when study after study show otherwise.

  40. bsneath says:

    Fair enough.

  41. riverrat says:

    Your analysis of the major financial media players is even more valuable than your market analysis Barry. Keep it coming! It is a great addition to larger, critical coverage of the decline of responsible reporting, and the balkanization of public discourse. It seems we are reading from so many different sheets of music, and many of those sheets downright SUCK. Egregious examples, such as the latter day WSJ need to be outed as often as possible..

    I do realize your market analysis has to be accepted as solid for you to gain the kind of traction your are getting with your comments on the financial press. So keep up the great work on both fronts please.