http://www.RexBlog.com/2008/08/01/17896?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=still-is-the-new-on-the-other-hand Rex Hammock's Blog Sun, 15 Jan 2012 04:37:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 http://www.RexBlog.com/2008/08/01/17896/comment-page-1#comment-285987 Rex Hammock Fri, 01 Aug 2008 19:45:56 +0000 http://www.RexBlog.com/?p=17896#comment-285987 Steve, let the record show that you are one of my favorite business writers in the universe. And that you've written a Business Week cover story on the topic of math. And that you have a book coming out on the subject soon. And that anything you say, I agree with instantly. Steve, let the record show that you are one of my favorite business writers in the universe. And that you’ve written a Business Week cover story on the topic of math. And that you have a book coming out on the subject soon. And that anything you say, I agree with instantly.

]]> http://www.RexBlog.com/2008/08/01/17896/comment-page-1#comment-285985 steve baker Fri, 01 Aug 2008 19:26:29 +0000 http://www.RexBlog.com/?p=17896#comment-285985 Rex, I think this is journalism that attempts to report, but not inform. It provides raw material, and except for a few boiler-plate quotes, leaves the analysis to us. I don't like that kind of journalism, though I've certainly produced my fair share of it over the years. But I have a deeper problem: I have no interest in reporting on markets. It's axiomatic that the price in a market, whether it's stocks, oil or the dollar, reflects the consensus of the markets, all of the "on one hand, on the other hand" facts reflected in the stories. It factors in perceived risk. So writing on the markets attempts to convince us that the market has it wrong, and that the people participating are focusing too much on one hand or the other. I think 99% of it is a waste of time and energy. Rex, I think this is journalism that attempts to report, but not inform. It provides raw material, and except for a few boiler-plate quotes, leaves the analysis to us.
I don’t like that kind of journalism, though I’ve certainly produced my fair share of it over the years. But I have a deeper problem: I have no interest in reporting on markets. It’s axiomatic that the price in a market, whether it’s stocks, oil or the dollar, reflects the consensus of the markets, all of the “on one hand, on the other hand” facts reflected in the stories. It factors in perceived risk. So writing on the markets attempts to convince us that the market has it wrong, and that the people participating are focusing too much on one hand or the other. I think 99% of it is a waste of time and energy.

]]> http://www.RexBlog.com/2008/08/01/17896/comment-page-1#comment-285916 Rex Hammock Fri, 01 Aug 2008 17:14:08 +0000 http://www.RexBlog.com/?p=17896#comment-285916 On the other hand, business reporting has sunk to the point where everything has to have two-sides -- or with this story, four or five sides. It's such a formula, that it's become a joke. That's why bloggers (academics, columnists, analysts) help fill the gap as interpreters. They have a point of view. Fortunately, the New York Times has a great economics blog (Freakonomics) where people who actually understand statistics and economics and have points-of-view blow-past this mushy reporting with something that makes sense -- or at least give me something to react to. On the other hand, business reporting has sunk to the point where everything has to have two-sides — or with this story, four or five sides. It’s such a formula, that it’s become a joke. That’s why bloggers (academics, columnists, analysts) help fill the gap as interpreters. They have a point of view. Fortunately, the New York Times has a great economics blog (Freakonomics) where people who actually understand statistics and economics and have points-of-view blow-past this mushy reporting with something that makes sense — or at least give me something to react to.

]]> http://www.RexBlog.com/2008/08/01/17896/comment-page-1#comment-285829 Christian Fri, 01 Aug 2008 16:09:31 +0000 http://www.RexBlog.com/?p=17896#comment-285829 Rex, to me, stats are often pretty clear, but I can say the reason statistics are often reported that way is, as you might guess, there are always two different sides arguing over what they mean - even when it's obvious to most people. Reporters often voice both of those arguements by telling you what they really mean and then throw in what it means (on the other hand) to those the stats have pissed off somehow. Rex, to me, stats are often pretty clear, but I can say the reason statistics are often reported that way is, as you might guess, there are always two different sides arguing over what they mean – even when it’s obvious to most people. Reporters often voice both of those arguements by telling you what they really mean and then throw in what it means (on the other hand) to those the stats have pissed off somehow.

]]>