Let’s start with this one:
Starkman insists there were no articles at ALL on “Wall-Street-subprime nexus.” But that’s EXACTLY what this was abt: http://bit.ly/6LdlA
This manages in 140 characters to misread both “Power Problem” and the story in the link, BusinessWeek’s excellent “Nightmare Mortgages” of September 2006, by Mara der Hovanesian, which is “exactly” not about the Wall Street/subprime nexus. It’s really about mortgages, but you have to read it. (The piece is included in our database, and I had it mind when I lauded the author as “excellent” in the main piece).
And, as I say in my story, the tragedy of financial journalism during the period was that some of the best work—tracing the subprime/Wall Street connection—was done in the earlier period, from 2000-2003, before Wall Street-backed predatory lending really took off. What happened? Buy the piece.
But Moore herself acknowledges in messages aimed at C.W. Anderson that “Power Problem” is not as crude as she makes it out to be when she uses it to reinforce her own argument that good work was done (which I never dispute):
must be hard for you to realize you can’t read. Starkman’s own article quotes at least 30 ex. of biz press alarms. Get over it.
please re-read Starkman’s article that YOU cited. He acknowledges biz press warnings from ‘00 to ‘07. Move on please.
So it’s nonsense, until you need it.
And then there’s this, to Rosen:
To take 737 articles out of the HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS written pre-crisis is obviously fake “research.” You should know better.
No. We screened through many thousands. We listed 737. By the way, if you want to make a good case in favor of the business press, there are worse places to start.
And to take a few examples cited in the browbeating above, let’s look at the links Moore sends Rosen:
And MORE. http://is.gd/nkmd http://is.gd/nkne http://is.gd/6wqV
The first link is to a blog post taking issue with someone else’s critique.
The second is to a BusinessWeek story in September 2007 when warnings were moot and, thus, outside the timeframe of our study.
The third is to the der Hovanesian piece discussed above:
READ MORE: @moorehn: http://bit.ly/9TQ4pI And more: http://bit.ly/cK9EqE http://nyti.ms/cbEqfT http://bit.ly/cyIVgS
The first link is from 2008, and not a press warning: It’s about how state officials tried to warn others about the crisis, but, alas, no one would listen.
The second link is to a good Orange County Register story and helps reinforce my point the predatory was gettable but underdone by the national media, which were the subject of my piece.
The third is to an interesting New York Times story about an investment scam that doesn’t speak to the point of my piece.
The fourth is to a PDF of a Loeb submission from Dow Jones Newswires, a high-cost subscription service that was outside the scope of our study about warnings to the public.
READ PLEASE. http://bit.ly/ayVA0e http://bit.ly/bBzhTM http://bit.ly/ba1HlX http://bit.ly/a0YvGw http://bit.ly/bajVXv
The first link here is to a Boston Globe story, again reinforcing the point about the national press.
The second is a link to a PDF of a story in Barron’s, which wasn’t part of the study. If you don’t like the study’s parameters, that’s one thing, but Moore isn’t making that argument.
The third is a link to a PDF of a good Atlanta Journal-Constitution series, again, outside the scope and again reinforcing the point.
The fourth links to a story in the Christian Science Monitor—also outside the study’s parameters and not at all part of the mainstream financial press—about borrowers’ bilking banks, the opposite of what we were looking for.
It’s not right to just throw links up against the wall, especially when precisely none of them stick.
There’s a real debate to be had here. Let’s have it, and let’s not be “weak” or “lazy” about it, and no “punking out,” either.
You got that, bubble-dwelling “journo profs”?
And I also ask you to please refrain from Twitter bullying w/words like “delusional” and “fantasia” when YOU have NO case.
Right, no Twitter bullying.