During my career in IT the New York Times did a handful of articles involving either the small company I worked for or on some subject area I was heavily involved in. Each time I was amazed at the level of inaccuracies and misunderstandings the in the articles. Given that this happened in a small sample, it could be that these were unusual cases, but I highly doubt it. I have a feeling that this is all too common. Since then I look at mainstream media reporting with lots of skepticism.
I worked on a project that was the subject of media interest that management wanted to keep under wraps. We would occasionally read bad news about the project in the NYT or the WSJ, management would deny the news, and then future developments would confirm that the reporting was correct (other than some inconsequential details that management would harp on).
These folks might not know much about 3D printing or blockchain or whatnot, but they are experts at sourcing, verifying, and reporting information. Dismiss them at your peril.
"As for The Wall Street Journal’s claim that I’m refusing to let go of control of Bridgewater, I can assure you that that is not true and that if it was true, I’d tell you it was true."
He claims their piece is full of factual errors but never addressed a single one in his LinkedIn post, and never provided any kind of evidence or arguments to support any of his other hyperbolic claims of systemic problems in journalism of the WSJ. Then he does something that is common in people who are actively dishonest: the old "Trust me, I'd tell you the truth." statement. Generally people who are honest are eager to present logical arguments backed by facts that can be verified. They don't need to ask for trust because trust isn't required to form independent conclusions based on evidence.
His LinkedIn post, after I read it, makes me believe the WSJ article more, not less.
A lot of comments here suggest that journalists and newspapers are only out to make what sells. That rings false to me in absolute terms. If you read Liars Poker by Michael Lewis you know he was employed at a brokerage and could have stuck around if he was only looking out for money. Does no one else here believe there are journalists who have forsaken the path of making big bucks in other fields to do the right thing?
It feels like there is a broad brush painting over this entire discussion. I can't say Ray Dalio makes a convincing case for himself here.
> Former newspaper editor and publisher here. The quickest way to lose your faith in the media is to have them cover something you actually know about.
Personal experience of mine was in my much younger days (early 90's and the Tory govt was pushing the 'criminal justice bill) when a rave in a field I was at was raided by 200+ police in full riot gear. They launched an unprovoked attack, beating the shit out of those they got their battons on.
The BBC had Cameras there and on the news that night edited to look like the kids were attacking the police. Never forgotten that, or how the BBC propagandised for the govt.
There have been numerous other examples in my tech & finance careers since then. When I see news, my first thought is what is the agenda of the the author (s) and am never surprised when the real.agenda appears later on.
I saw first hand how the "truth" was manipulated by tech jounralists to create a narrative that they wanted. They included certain things, and omitted others, to make sure that the overarching story they wanted to tell was consistent with their world view. They were searching for the truth, they were trying to make a name for themselves, and then leveraging that for a book deal.
> The Wall Street Journal and other publications don’t have investigative journalists write complementary articles on people because those articles don’t sell, which is why our country has no heroes
This happens all the time. They're called fluff PR pieces. Basically the opposite of what Dalio describes in the rest of his post, but they absolutely exist.
Bridgewater is famous for valuing a culture of almost brutal honesty and fierce internecine warring over ideas. It argues this combination is vital to reaching the deep understanding that is critical to the success of its investments. While Bridgewater has experimented with leadership transitions multiple times, changing directions and reversing course seems consistent and faithful to its internal DNA. Life doesn't always go in neat straight lines. Forcing a simple story line isn't always best.
> As for The Wall Street Journal’s claim that I’m refusing to let go of control of Bridgewater, I can assure you that that is not true and that if it was true, I’d tell you it was true.
So your counter-argument to an article in a publication that has won 37 Pulitzer prizes for the quality of its news reporting is: “they’re wrong, trust me.”
I like Ray Dalio. I’m a big fan of his book, Principles and his favorite book recommendation, Lessons of History by the Durants.
However, his LinkedIn post is irresponsible and appears more to do with discrediting journalism than sticking to and stating the facts. It’s becoming more than apparent that some members of the 1% are increasingly threatened about the role that unfettered journalism and left-leaning politics has in critiquing their unchecked power in this time of historically significant inequality.
I don't understand your point. I like the WSJ myself, and have been a subscriber for 15 years. However, the article is clearly biased, in that they give token space near the beginning to the responses of the actual subjects in the article, and then spend the balance 80% of the article continuing their narrative, regardless of what the subjects themselves said!
Ray Dalio is right. Journalism is not about informing or educating, it is about entertaining, and depending on your media source of choice, you are being pandered to.
This is not about "discrediting journalism" or whatever sob story media pushers want to cry crocodile tears about. They have killed their own credibility, and every day they behave badly, and continue to play victim, the more people wake up and stop trusting them.
Edit -- the big thing that media companies hate is that now with the internet and social media, people being covered have a voice and can speak up. Media companies absolutely hate this loss of influence, and again will attack anyone or anything that chips away at that from them. But again, they exposed themselves, and have wrecked their own credibility, hence the dying out of the industry.
Dalio is the creator of the 'All Weather Portfolio', which was popularized in a Tony Robbins book. The portfolio is very heavy on bonds, a controversial idea.
Dalio is often outspoken on lots of financial matters. I'll be watching this issue, he's an interesting figure.
I don’t really understand why we should care about a fund or its managers.
Unlike product companies, funds don’t contribute anything meaningful to the world. It’s a zero-sum game where someone comes out on top with $19 billion dollars and then goes to Burning Man. That’s acceptable but not admirable.
The only difference between Dalio and Madoff is that the former actually has the money. Neither has a legacy.
He is playing in one of the most difficult and competitive games in the world, has a track record of crushing it, and has produced excellent work to document and share the mindset which helps him do it.
He obviously has a legacy. People like me respect him. You don't like his legacy. That doesn't mean he doesn't have one.
[+] [-] chkaloon|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gwbrooks|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] KKKKkkkk1|6 years ago|reply
These folks might not know much about 3D printing or blockchain or whatnot, but they are experts at sourcing, verifying, and reporting information. Dismiss them at your peril.
[+] [-] iamleppert|6 years ago|reply
He claims their piece is full of factual errors but never addressed a single one in his LinkedIn post, and never provided any kind of evidence or arguments to support any of his other hyperbolic claims of systemic problems in journalism of the WSJ. Then he does something that is common in people who are actively dishonest: the old "Trust me, I'd tell you the truth." statement. Generally people who are honest are eager to present logical arguments backed by facts that can be verified. They don't need to ask for trust because trust isn't required to form independent conclusions based on evidence.
His LinkedIn post, after I read it, makes me believe the WSJ article more, not less.
[+] [-] mirimir|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tvvocold|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sepbot|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] xrd|6 years ago|reply
It feels like there is a broad brush painting over this entire discussion. I can't say Ray Dalio makes a convincing case for himself here.
[+] [-] ironic_ali|6 years ago|reply
> Former newspaper editor and publisher here. The quickest way to lose your faith in the media is to have them cover something you actually know about.
Personal experience of mine was in my much younger days (early 90's and the Tory govt was pushing the 'criminal justice bill) when a rave in a field I was at was raided by 200+ police in full riot gear. They launched an unprovoked attack, beating the shit out of those they got their battons on.
The BBC had Cameras there and on the news that night edited to look like the kids were attacking the police. Never forgotten that, or how the BBC propagandised for the govt.
There have been numerous other examples in my tech & finance careers since then. When I see news, my first thought is what is the agenda of the the author (s) and am never surprised when the real.agenda appears later on.
[+] [-] pfarnsworth|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] topmonk|6 years ago|reply
On the other side of the coin, independent reporters don't get much traction / notoriety unless they kneel to sensationalism.
So there isn't any practical way to do unbiased reporting and still get your voice heard.
[+] [-] tedunangst|6 years ago|reply
Having now read both accounts, I think I'm going to have to go with the WSJ here.
[+] [-] darkerside|6 years ago|reply
This happens all the time. They're called fluff PR pieces. Basically the opposite of what Dalio describes in the rest of his post, but they absolutely exist.
[+] [-] quizotic|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] smacktoward|6 years ago|reply
So your counter-argument to an article in a publication that has won 37 Pulitzer prizes for the quality of its news reporting is: “they’re wrong, trust me.”
[+] [-] forgingahead|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sunstone|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] faintrain|6 years ago|reply
However, his LinkedIn post is irresponsible and appears more to do with discrediting journalism than sticking to and stating the facts. It’s becoming more than apparent that some members of the 1% are increasingly threatened about the role that unfettered journalism and left-leaning politics has in critiquing their unchecked power in this time of historically significant inequality.
[+] [-] forgingahead|6 years ago|reply
Ray Dalio is right. Journalism is not about informing or educating, it is about entertaining, and depending on your media source of choice, you are being pandered to.
This is not about "discrediting journalism" or whatever sob story media pushers want to cry crocodile tears about. They have killed their own credibility, and every day they behave badly, and continue to play victim, the more people wake up and stop trusting them.
Edit -- the big thing that media companies hate is that now with the internet and social media, people being covered have a voice and can speak up. Media companies absolutely hate this loss of influence, and again will attack anyone or anything that chips away at that from them. But again, they exposed themselves, and have wrecked their own credibility, hence the dying out of the industry.
[+] [-] unknown|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] RickJWagner|6 years ago|reply
Dalio is often outspoken on lots of financial matters. I'll be watching this issue, he's an interesting figure.
[+] [-] sessy|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pavlov|6 years ago|reply
Unlike product companies, funds don’t contribute anything meaningful to the world. It’s a zero-sum game where someone comes out on top with $19 billion dollars and then goes to Burning Man. That’s acceptable but not admirable.
The only difference between Dalio and Madoff is that the former actually has the money. Neither has a legacy.
[+] [-] anm89|6 years ago|reply
He is playing in one of the most difficult and competitive games in the world, has a track record of crushing it, and has produced excellent work to document and share the mindset which helps him do it.
He obviously has a legacy. People like me respect him. You don't like his legacy. That doesn't mean he doesn't have one.