This will be the last mention of media bias for the foreseeable future: The NYT wades into the market action last week, and spots numerous factors contributing to the volatility:
“Worries about the strength of the global recovery and proposals from Washington to clamp down on banks have sent fresh jitters through financial markets, prompting chatter among traders that stocks could be poised for that rare but alarming phenomenon: a correction…
Over three tense days last week, stocks tumbled nearly 5 percent; the Dow posted triple-digit losses on Wednesday, Thursday and Friday, ending the week at its lowest level since November.Some analysts believe the downward momentum may continue. They say the ingredients are there: a spike in volatility (up 55 percent in the three-day period last week, according to one gauge); activism from Washington (the Obama administration’s crusade against risky banks and uncertainty over the future of the Federal Reserve chairman, Ben S. Bernanke); and concerns over the slow pace of a global recovery (worries of a default in Greece and inflation in China).”
One cannot help but point out this is what balanced market reporting — as opposed to the front page laugher we saw in the WSJ last week — looks like.
click for larger graphic
courtesy of NYT
WSJ Jumps the Shark (January 22, 2010)
The WSJ Responds (January 22, 2010)
What Balanced Market Reporting Looks Like (January 23, 2010)
Volatility and Politics Are Feeding Fears of a Market Correction
JAVIER C. HERNANDEZ
NYT, January 24, 2010
Category: Financial Press
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.