Why isn't Wall Street in jail?

[Pekelo]

What the hell, this is a holiday, so let's educate:

Quote from sprstpd:

Yes it does. If you compare and contrast the two,

But you haven't done that yet. And again, saying A is an excellent product itself says nothing about product B's quality.

Matt Taibbi doesn't even come close in terms of journalistic integrity.

Really? An example where you could show that would be nice. I got it, you don't like his personal style, and occasional course words. get over it. It doesn't say anything about the facts he writes about or his integrity.

So by just showing a real journalist and not a biased editorialist, I have shown how Taibbi is weak and ineffective.

In your dreamworld. You can be biased and still FACTUAL and/or objective. Now I apologize for capitalizing the word, I use it for emphasis, not because I am yelling.

People who have to scream to get their point across are generally people not worth listening to.

Did capitalizing one 3 letter word hurt your sensitive little word?

P.S.: Holiday or not, since your criticism of Matt has been a giant FAIL, further discussions with you are moot.

 

[piezoe]

Quote from sprstpd:

I've critiqued his content as well. You should reread my selections more slowly.

Any "journalist" that continually uses swear words and blows things out of proportion in a large percentage of their sentences is someone that is not credible.

It is fine by me if you want to criticize either his style or content so long as the two are not confused, but criticism of style does not say anything about truth.

I doubt that Taibbi would think those articles you are referring to were examples of "journalism". They were obviously intentionally written in vernacular style so they would be read by a wider audience. They were, after all, in Rolling Stone, not the NY Times. If you think of them as opinion pieces, they will probably bother you less.

Certainly some of his assertions have been born out by the investigations and hearings that followed the financial debacle.

 

[AK100]

Matt Taibbi makes Rolling Stone look good.

He's the reason I've bought a few copies over the last year or so, and I've never bought it before. I hope others have done so as well.

Sure, the net is taking over print but try to support good magazines/papers as we'll all be the poorer if they close. Plus, print is better than a screen as it can be read anywhere and more easily.

 

[piezoe]

Quote from jnbadger:

Ya mean like writing a naked option? Yes. Bad idea.

EDIT: I meant selling the policy is comparable to selling an option. But you knew that.

Badger, I don't know about that. I'll have to think about it. True enough options can be used to "insure" a position against loss. But one doesn't usually hedge an asset you don't own. Just writing an option? What are you insuring in that case? Isn't that just speculation?

I'm having trouble seeing that an option and an insurance policy are the same thing. But it's Presidents day, so let's not worry about it.

 

[krazykarl]

Quote from denner:

Save your energy Pekelo, Krazy Karl is a Bernanke fanboy and Goldman Sachs cheerleader. If you disagree with the Fed saved the world and Goldman is doing "God's work" thesis, then you are an ignorant, tinfoil hat wearing wingnut...according to Karl.

LOL - do you ghost-write for MT? Judging by your assumptions I find it highly-probable.

I don't agree with everything the Fed has done by a LOOOONNNG shot, but I don't wear tin-foil hats like you do either. Here's a few things I disagree with the Fed on:

-Greenspan's policies enabled the RE bubble
-Ben spent too much time analyzing the problem before they started doing something.


The fact you put "Goldman" and "God's work" in the same sentence show how much a tool you are. I think you're ignorant becuase you are ONLY anti-fed, along with the short pundits in this thread. Why do I think I'm better than you? I don't, but I know that the Fed is not some nefarious branch of Satan's army out to suck the life from the earth.

 

[sprstpd]

Quote from Pekelo:

P.S.: Holiday or not, since your criticism of Matt has been a giant FAIL, further discussions with you are moot.

I have pointed out many sentences and paragraphs from his latest article. Reread them very slowly. You will see Taibbi is clearly biased in his assertions and also that he infers or assumes facts that he has not proven and does not attempt to prove. If you consider that to be good journalism then that's fine. Your original post calls the article a "masterpiece" so I would expect you to be blind to any faults in it.

 

[sprstpd]

Quote from piezoe:

It is fine by me if you want to criticize either his style or content so long as the two are not confused, but criticism of style does not say anything about truth.

That may be true, but a lot of your credibility as a journalist is based on the perception of you being an objective observer. If you continually use profanity to back up points or are obviously leaning towards a foregone conclusion, you lack credibility.

I doubt that Taibbi would think those articles you are referring to were examples of "journalism". They were obviously intentionally written in vernacular style so they would be read by a wider audience. They were, after all, in Rolling Stone, not the NY Times. If you think of them as opinion pieces, they will probably bother you less.

Well then we agree Taibbi is not a real journalist.

Certainly some of his assertions have been born out by the investigations and hearings that followed the financial debacle.

No doubt, but other people have made the same assertions before he has, and in a more effective manner.