Surowiecki writes, “And it’s a massive move when you consider that the story itself sounded, from the start, improbable. Why, after all, would Immelt have issued that kind of forecast at the end of the trading day? And why would he have felt the need to issue a new, massively downbeat forecast for 2009 when the future remains so uncertain? The answer, of course, is that he wouldn’t. But in this market, traders don’t believe they have the time to wait. When news breaks, they have to act.
“The second and more important point is that this is yet another example of how the cult of the scoop—of making sure your story crosses the wire five minutes ahead of your competitor’s—in business journalism can wreak amazing havoc. Someone at Dow Jones should have paused and asked whether or not this story was really plausible before putting it out there. But if true, it would have been huge, market-moving news, and for the newswires—D.J. and Bloomberg—being able to move markets is central to their business: if you’re in the market, you need to subscribe to these wires because otherwise you’ll be behind the information curve. So the story was published. And it did, in fact, move the market. Job well done.”
Read more here.
Wall Street Journal editor in chief Emma Tucker sent out the following on Friday: Dear…
New York Times metro editor Nestor Ramos sent out the following on Friday: We are delighted to…
Rahat Kapur of Campaign looks at the evolution The Wall Street Journal. Kapur writes, "The transformation…
This position will be Hybrid in the office/market 3 days per week, and those days…
The Fund for American Studies presented James Bennet of The Economist with the Kenneth Y. Tomlinson Award…
The Wall Street Journal is experimenting with AI-generated article summaries that appear at the top…