| |||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||
Maybe in our next life, we'll come back not as a mere reporter, with all the drudgery that job entails — calling, fact checking, dragging in context and background — but as a blogger, whose news gathering entails asking readers for information and then feeding it back to them raw and in real time. This is not a knock on blogging; it is an observation about how deeply blogging has burrowed into financial journalism over the past few years.
Witness reports last week about Credit Suisse Group's plans to lay off staff in its mortgage-backed securities unit. DealBreaker.com carried an item late Tuesday about rumors that the firm was about to ax up to 400 people, though it noted that it had "strong reason" to believe the number was lower than that. About an hour later, DealBreaker informed its readers that it was "sending a reporter over there to see what's up." A half hour after that, DealBreaker said it was basically done for the day and directed its readers to "Check comments below for additional rumor-mongering." Indeed, more than a few anonymous commentators weighed in on what they heard or believed was going on, from cuts being made across all of structured finance to layoffs being limited to leveraged finance and numbering about 250. Reading the posts is like getting your hands on a reporter's raw notes without being given any additional information. It's up to the reader to decide what makes sense and what doesn't, even though that poor soul, unlike a reporter, has no idea of the credibility of each source. One DealBreaker commentator, however, directed readers to an item on The New York Times' DealBook Web site that said Credit Suisse was laying off 150 people in its mortgage-backed securities unit, sourced to "a person with knowledge of the matter." The DealBook report was confirmed the next day by an announcement from Credit Suisse, earning the Times credit from other media outlets with breaking the news. On its own site, however, DealBook tipped its hat to DealBreaker for first reporting the speculation the day before. Doesn't anyone want to get credit here? Let's review: Speculation led to rumor mongering, which produced an anonymous confirmation, later confirmed by an official source. Who owns that scoop? Your guess is as good as ours. Apostscript on our report on the release of Alan Greenspan's book last week: Fortune magazine, one of zillions that devoted copious amounts of ink to our former Fed chairman's musings, is pretty sure that its Greenspan coverage was the best of the bunch. Why, you ask? Because "Fortune has had a relationship with the former Fed chairman that stretches back more than half a century," gushes managing editor and interviewer Andy Serwer in his editor's letter. We learn that in the 1950s, young Alan began freelancing for the magazine and continued to do so for 20 years. In addition, Fortune senior editor-at-large Peter Petre helped Greenspan write his much-hyped book; a Fortune photo editor helped assemble the book's pictures; and a Fortune librarian aided its research. And, of course, the entire magazine (like the rest of the media) is helping with the book's marketing. Seriously, while it's interesting that Greenspan wrote for Fortune many moons ago, it's hardly surprising; the magazine published — indeed employed — a slew of economic notables, from Peter Drucker to John Kenneth Galbraith, early in their careers. But how that sets Fortune's take on its pal Al "apart from — and indeed ahead of — all the others," as Serwer claims, is lost on us. Most current Fortune staffers (including Serwer) were either infants or less — much less — when Greenspan was writing for the magazine. And there's no evidence that Greenspan gave Fortune anything more valuable than what he dished out to others. At least Warren Buffett, another Fortune BFF, tosses the mag an exclusive once in a while. We realize that editor's letters tend to be exercises in hype. That's fine; we all want to market what we produce. But Serwer's flogging of Fortune's relationship with Greenspan is just more evidence of our connection-happy, linked-in times, in which journalism is one big social network, where who you know is what you know. Fortune, we're reminded, has an in with no less a personage than Alan Greenspan. What do you say to that, Portfolio?—Yvette Kantrow CategoriesComments Deal Video
    Community
 Elsewhere on The Deal.comDealwatchThe Deal MagazineCorporate Dealmaker
The Deal VideoCategories
Blog roll
Archives
| |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
Unfortunately, Dealbreaker's style is to post blind items that are essentially fishing expeditions. Let's face it. Their ties to the financial community seem pretty limited, although they'd love everyone to believe otherwise. John Carney was a corporate lawyer for a few years, and Bess Levin is a year out of college. Keith Hahn was in an investment banking two year program and resigned before it was even concluded. Their ability to break stories seems quite limited. Most of their stories come from mainstream news or other blog posts (and they've on occasion claimed uncredited scoops from those sources and have been called on it). Those who provide information to DB seem generally to be low on the totem pole so pretty removed from the actual source given the inaccuracy of their "scoops".