Robert Teitelman of The Deal tries to reconcile the difference between a financial press that supposedly did not act in the best interests of the general public in reporting leading up to the economic crisis and a financial press that increasingly uses social networking to talk to the people.
Teitelman writes, “What I’m not saying here, mind you, is that a belief in social networking was the reason financial journalists failed to ring the fire alarm loud enough to deter the crisis. That would be stupid.
“In fact, these tensions are shared by journalists, policymakers and, in its clearest manifestations, the markets themselves. In a democracy, in a free-market system, we ritually ascribe wisdom to the collective. The fundamental basis of efficient markets is that the market as a whole is the best processor of information — far better than, say, a policymaker or an investor, no matter how brilliant (the fact that we say that and act differently tells us something). That set of free-market beliefs, which has been altered and reshaped recently by behavioral economics and perhaps by our reaction to the slump, also defines the ethos of social networking. In short, maybe the crowd isn’t always so smart all the time.
“Is there a way to reconcile these two worldviews? Well, of course there is, starting with the notion that ultimate wisdom exists in neither of them, that the most fruitful situation is to allow that tension to persist, to shuttle back and forth between the two views.”
OLD Media Moves
The financial press and the public
May 2, 2009
Robert Teitelman of The Deal tries to reconcile the difference between a financial press that supposedly did not act in the best interests of the general public in reporting leading up to the economic crisis and a financial press that increasingly uses social networking to talk to the people.
Teitelman writes, “What I’m not saying here, mind you, is that a belief in social networking was the reason financial journalists failed to ring the fire alarm loud enough to deter the crisis. That would be stupid.
“In fact, these tensions are shared by journalists, policymakers and, in its clearest manifestations, the markets themselves. In a democracy, in a free-market system, we ritually ascribe wisdom to the collective. The fundamental basis of efficient markets is that the market as a whole is the best processor of information — far better than, say, a policymaker or an investor, no matter how brilliant (the fact that we say that and act differently tells us something). That set of free-market beliefs, which has been altered and reshaped recently by behavioral economics and perhaps by our reaction to the slump, also defines the ethos of social networking. In short, maybe the crowd isn’t always so smart all the time.
“Is there a way to reconcile these two worldviews? Well, of course there is, starting with the notion that ultimate wisdom exists in neither of them, that the most fruitful situation is to allow that tension to persist, to shuttle back and forth between the two views.”
Read more here.
Media News
LinkedIn finance editor Singh departs
December 21, 2024
Media Moves
Washington Post announces start of third newsroom
December 20, 2024
Media News
FT hires Moens to cover competition and tech in Brussels
December 20, 2024
Media News
Deputy tech editor Haselton departs CNBC for The Verge
December 20, 2024
Highlighted News
“Power Lunch” co-anchor Tyler Mathisen is leaving CNBC
December 20, 2024
Subscribe to TBN
Receive updates about new stories in the industry daily or weekly.