The Wall Street Journal - More Insane Than Charlie Sheen?
This past Wednesday, March 2nd, I did a double-take reading the WSJ's top editorial titled "Housing Market Masochism." For a second I thought I was reading the National Enquirer.
In the course of a mere 727 words they outlined a position on the banking/housing crisis that had all the (il)logic, incendiary remarks and mean spiritedness of a Charlie Sheen media appearance.
In business I've learned that when people casually toss around volcanic words like "extorted", "reckless", "end-run" and "bleed", you'd better hold onto your wallet. Words like these are usually used to misdirect and obfuscate. I expect this kind of semantic "smokescreen" from a savvy political operative, not from the leading source of business news in America.
Unless of course the Wall Street Journal is morphing into the former.
What was most disturbing about the Journal's editorial was their attack on Elizabeth Warren, the Harvard Professor whose thoughtful advocacy of consumer financial protection has lead to the creation of the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. They used the tried and true "unnamed sources" ploy like pros, in order to take free shots at Ms. Warren.
By saying --
"after it became clear she [Ms. Warren] couldn't win confirmation to run the new bureau"
they've stolen a page directly out of the political operative playbook, coyly presenting their partisan wishful thinking as pre-ordained fact. (By the way WSJ, my sources say she has a chance.)
Then the coup de (dis)grace. Remarking that --
"a $20 billion raid on mortgage servicers fits with her ideological agenda that banks are the villains of the credit crisis while distributing cash to homeowners who will presumably be grateful on election day 2012."
Using their bully pulpit of millions of readers, they've managed to influence public opinion by painting Ms. Warren with the indelible brush of "ideologue." Joseph McCarthy would be proud.
While I don't know about Mr. Sheen, I do know that the Wall Street Journal is not insane at all. They know exactly what they are doing.
In the course of a mere 727 words they outlined a position on the banking/housing crisis that had all the (il)logic, incendiary remarks and mean spiritedness of a Charlie Sheen media appearance.
In business I've learned that when people casually toss around volcanic words like "extorted", "reckless", "end-run" and "bleed", you'd better hold onto your wallet. Words like these are usually used to misdirect and obfuscate. I expect this kind of semantic "smokescreen" from a savvy political operative, not from the leading source of business news in America.
Unless of course the Wall Street Journal is morphing into the former.
What was most disturbing about the Journal's editorial was their attack on Elizabeth Warren, the Harvard Professor whose thoughtful advocacy of consumer financial protection has lead to the creation of the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. They used the tried and true "unnamed sources" ploy like pros, in order to take free shots at Ms. Warren.
By saying --
"after it became clear she [Ms. Warren] couldn't win confirmation to run the new bureau"
they've stolen a page directly out of the political operative playbook, coyly presenting their partisan wishful thinking as pre-ordained fact. (By the way WSJ, my sources say she has a chance.)
Then the coup de (dis)grace. Remarking that --
"a $20 billion raid on mortgage servicers fits with her ideological agenda that banks are the villains of the credit crisis while distributing cash to homeowners who will presumably be grateful on election day 2012."
Using their bully pulpit of millions of readers, they've managed to influence public opinion by painting Ms. Warren with the indelible brush of "ideologue." Joseph McCarthy would be proud.
While I don't know about Mr. Sheen, I do know that the Wall Street Journal is not insane at all. They know exactly what they are doing.
Source...