The article boils down to one thing: "Obama is floating a bill the author likes. The general consensus is that the reason the market is down is BECAUSE of Obama's bill. The WSJ dares to report that the market is down BECAUSE of Obama's bill. Therefore the WSJ is are a bunch of no-good right-wing authoritarian fascists, and I'm going to stick my fingers in my ears and pretend that they don't exist".
I think you need to re-read the article. Your 'general consensus' could be phrased better as 'general media consensus', in my opinion. The author's point was that you cannot clearly establish causation in the market, and that there could be numerous reasons for the drop and he presented several other potential causes, and that analysis of segments of the market did not really correspond to the Obama announcement as the main cause. I don't think he outright rejects that it may have had some impact.
In general, what I take away from the article is that the tone of the Business section of the website used to be just 'business', and that you could expect clear analysis. He no longer feels that is the case, and as such, the WSJ is becoming more just another 'general media' outlet, and not as special as it once was.
Did you read the whole thing? The biggest losers were commodities, not banks. Many banks also just reported quarterly losses and signs of continued economic trouble. The "general consensus" is what it is because of sloppy reporting like the WSJ provided.
Go look at the financial sector over the last month--it had a big spike and is now back to where it started. Then look at how closely it tracks the S&P 500. Banks are actually doing a little better, but it's tracking quite closely. There's a lot more to why markets move than proposed new regulation on banks.
1. Your summary of what the article "boils down to" includes this: "The general consensus is that the reason the market is down is BECAUSE of Obama's bill". There is no such thing in the article.
2. The article suggests reasons to think that the reason why the market is down is not "BECAUSE of Obama's bill". You neither mention these reason nor offer any objections to them. (The reasons are: (a) the market is noisy enough that typically day-to-day movements are mostly noise; (b) there is another good explanation for the market drop, namely China's recent doings.)
3. Your summary of the article includes this: "the WSJ is are a bunch of no-good right-wing authoritarian fascists, and I'm going to stick my fingers in my ears and pretend that they don't exist". The actual article's complaints about the WSJ's politics don't include anything about authoritarianism or fascism, and the author says not that he's going to pretend they don't exist but that he's not going to take them so seriously any more.
4. You offer no evidence of the alleged consensus, no indication of whose consensus it is, and no reason to think that the alleged consensus is correct.
I think the downvotes have more to do with people not wanting to see baldly political rants. The article was about the Wall Street Journal. You replied with an off topic ad-hominem about the authors motivations and intelligence. Bad form.
Technically, the article is about the quality of journalism in the WSJ (plus of course the impact that politics has had on that quality), and the poster responded with a comment on the author's politics and completely ignored the issue of content quality.
You can't talk about journalism by talking only about politics.
I didn't down vote you but I think people are disagreeing with your interpretation of the article. He made it clear in his article that he dislikes both sides. And from his previous articles, I believe him. He doesn't limit his attacks to just one party.
I'm sorry but this is bull. The man dislikes both sides but he disagrees with the right and thinks the left didn't go far enough. That's not the same thing.
In a slate profile (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2009/04/16/cassandras/inde...) he's listed as disliking the stimulus because it wasn't big enough and wanting the banking system nationalized. Without passing judgment on the merits of his philosophy the man is clearly a leftist.
The original comment was saying "this guy is partisan and that's why he doesn't like the article".
You tried to refute that by saying "He dislikes both sides"
I'm saying he doesn't really dislike both sides. He dislikes one side and agrees with but is disappointed in the other. Those are vastly different things.
I probably shouldn't have said, "He dislikes both sides" when I should have said, "He attacks/criticizes both sides." My intent was to show he's not some blind partisan hack.
I'm not sure if he's a leftist either. Some people accused him of being a libertarian in the past.
Two calm comments of mine, both down voted to 0 or lower.
...and yet someone making no points and calling names (below) still has a positive score.
You down voters ought to be ashamed of yourselves - this is a marketplace of IDEAS, and yet you're just lashing out. Very mature. Very much in the spirit of HN.
Your comments are not calm, they are flamebait; and your opinions don't appear to have any connection to the actual article, in which the author describes specific reasons why he thought the Journal's coverage was poor (e.g. their failure to distinguish between financial and commodity markets, their failure to mention China's announcement.)
can you point out in the article, with quotes, where your ideas are validated? i read the article first, read your comment, and then re-read the article and nowhere do i see any support for your summary.
the only thing i can imagine is that this article doesn't line up with your own personal belief system, and you're violently rejecting it.
Re-read your comment, and I don't think you can really classify it as 'calm'. It clearly shows your political motivation, the same as you accuse the author.
