'Wall Street Coverage Makes Me CringeBy MarketWatch. 17 Sep 2008
NEW YORK (MarketWatch) — I cringed as I watched the press conference for Ken Lewis of Bank of America and John Thain of Merrill Lynch on Monday. The two gathered to discuss B of A’s proposed acquisition of Merrill.
The event should have been regarded as a sorry state of affairs, yet another glaring sign of greed, stupidity and mismanagement on Wall Street. Why else would Merrill Lynch, Wall Street’s most acclaimed ambassador to Main Street, among other verities, be forced to sell itself in such an inglorious way?
With all the carnage, you might expect to see a pinstripe lynch mob of sorts encounter the two chief executives. But the media were so polite and deferential to the two CEOs, they behaved as if the press conference were a victory lap for the financial services industry.
There was an absence of tough, in-your-face questions. Yes, by all means, the journalists should have shown these fellows the respect that accomplished people deserve.
But where was the skepticism or the sense of outrage by the media? We’re supposed to be the proxies for the public. When I saw television networks interview the (wo)man on the street during the crisis, I saw more emotion in the faces of ordinary citizens than in those of the journalists.
Don’t treat these CEOs like heroes. I have never quite understood why reporters and editors show Wall Street leaders, and business titans in general, so much deference. These are people who are incredibly talented at doing one thing: making money. They make money for themselves and hopefully, eventually, for their employees and shareholders.
Is it because financial journalists really don’t understand the nuances of their beats? Are they hoping to curry the favor of their subjects and sources to cover up a lack of knowledge (there is certainly a lack of institutional knowledge on the reporters’ faces, as if Wall Street doesn’t have periodic collapses every 10 to 15 years. Remember, Sept. 24 marks the 10th anniversary of the beginning of the end of Long-Term Capital, once the haven of the smartest financial minds on the Street).
Sure, it’s inspiring to see billionaires like Bill and Melinda Gates and celebrities like U2’s singer Bono give back to poor people so lavishly. They deserve a lot of credit for their generosity, but let’s not give them angel’s wings just yet. (Besides, Time magazine already named them as Person(s) of the Year, right?)
The only reporter who impressed me at the Lewis-Thain press conference was a fellow from the Guardian (I believe he said). He asked Thain if he judged himself to be a success or failure in his relatively brief reign at Merrill (Thain gave him some double talk but never adequately answered the question).'
The event should have been regarded as a sorry state of affairs, yet another glaring sign of greed, stupidity and mismanagement on Wall Street. Why else would Merrill Lynch, Wall Street’s most acclaimed ambassador to Main Street, among other verities, be forced to sell itself in such an inglorious way?
With all the carnage, you might expect to see a pinstripe lynch mob of sorts encounter the two chief executives. But the media were so polite and deferential to the two CEOs, they behaved as if the press conference were a victory lap for the financial services industry.
There was an absence of tough, in-your-face questions. Yes, by all means, the journalists should have shown these fellows the respect that accomplished people deserve.
But where was the skepticism or the sense of outrage by the media? We’re supposed to be the proxies for the public. When I saw television networks interview the (wo)man on the street during the crisis, I saw more emotion in the faces of ordinary citizens than in those of the journalists.
Don’t treat these CEOs like heroes. I have never quite understood why reporters and editors show Wall Street leaders, and business titans in general, so much deference. These are people who are incredibly talented at doing one thing: making money. They make money for themselves and hopefully, eventually, for their employees and shareholders.
Is it because financial journalists really don’t understand the nuances of their beats? Are they hoping to curry the favor of their subjects and sources to cover up a lack of knowledge (there is certainly a lack of institutional knowledge on the reporters’ faces, as if Wall Street doesn’t have periodic collapses every 10 to 15 years. Remember, Sept. 24 marks the 10th anniversary of the beginning of the end of Long-Term Capital, once the haven of the smartest financial minds on the Street).
Sure, it’s inspiring to see billionaires like Bill and Melinda Gates and celebrities like U2’s singer Bono give back to poor people so lavishly. They deserve a lot of credit for their generosity, but let’s not give them angel’s wings just yet. (Besides, Time magazine already named them as Person(s) of the Year, right?)
The only reporter who impressed me at the Lewis-Thain press conference was a fellow from the Guardian (I believe he said). He asked Thain if he judged himself to be a success or failure in his relatively brief reign at Merrill (Thain gave him some double talk but never adequately answered the question).'
3 opmerkingen:
I have never quite understood why reporters and editors show Wall Street leaders, and business titans in general, so much deference.
Now how could that be.
Euh.. mischien omdat ze behoren tot de kaste die de eigenaar is van de toko's waar die "reporters and editors" werken??
Plus, door "respect" te tonen voor dat tuig hoopt men dat de glorie van obscene rijkdom op hen afstraalt. Daar is volgens mij wel een goed beschreven psycho-sociale categorie voor. :-)
herman_m
Heb weinig op met de zogenaamde gulheid van mensen als Gates. In termen van de huidige geld problemen is hij vooral een geld-infarct die de normale doorstroom in de handel (product-geld-product) vooral in de weg zit.
Succes, Ben
Nou, feitelijk is Gates in zekere zin de een van de uitzonderingen die de regel bevestigen. Ook al geeft ie dan z'n geld aan doelen waar je ook kritische vragen bij kan stellen, z'n plannen zijn in ieder geval oneindig ambitieuzer dan de gemiddelde miljardair in de VS (ondanks de mythe van de "filantropie").
Je weet wel, het type Carnegie dat arbeiders uitbuitte tot op het bot en daarna de filantroop gaat uithangen.
Voor de goede orde, ik heb een grote afkeer van Microsoft - geen MS software in mijn huis. ;) Maar het MS imperium is niet half zo destructief als Big Oil, Big Media, Big Banking, Big Agri of Big Pharma.
Een reactie posten