For the last several months, I have been voluntarily receiving daily e-mail feeds from Investors Business Daily, the IBD Market Prep and the IBD Tech Report. Most of these e-mails contain links to stories on stocks in the news, ones that have seen recent activity. Without making more than a cursory analysis, I find myself really surprised at the political tenor of one or two linksincluded each day. The titles of these links and their content are so politically extreme, that I think I'm reading an extremist blog. Are MFO members familiar with the leanings of IBD? I remember receiving a two-week free subscription long ago, but I do not recall the editorial stance of the paper. I don't get much out of reading these feeds and can easily unsubscribe, but I still wonder how I wandered into this area. I don't care to debate IBD's editorial stances here or anywhere, but I feel compelled to report a queasiness of the kind that I might experience in receiving a lurid e-mail promising me unheard of sexual prowess.
Comments
My experiences with IBD were during the Reagan and Bush Sr. administrations. Well before the age of the Internet.
The reason for your well-founded "queasiness" is that you ARE reading an extremist blog, one of the most virulent at that. The IBD editorial staff is Fox News on steroids, the lunatic fringe of the Republic Party. Their views and political orientation are quite similar to the Koch Brothers and both have their roots in the infamous John Birch Society of the 1950's and 1960's, a thinly-disguised white Christian supremacy group. In IBD's world, businesses and capitalism are unregulated and are permitted to do whatever they please to further enrich their coffers. The American worker and the American people are a nuisance, impediments to their world view of Capitalism Uber Alles. Any regulations that interfere with this, i.e., environmental, Frank-Dodd, etc., are un-American and treasonous.
Their never-ending diatribes against Pres. Barack Obama are especially odious and are a reflection of their racist orientation and ideological roots with the John Birch Society. Many people who read and/or subscribe to IBD simply through away the first section and read the stock columns and ratings in Section Two.
Regards,
Ted
I enjoy the quick snapshot you get of the preceding day's activities in the various markets and industries. But, these articles are very shallow. They also include a bit of technical analysis and attempt to advise you when to buy or sell stocks. Not my cup of tea - so don't pay much attention.
Some of their feature articles are damned good, especially when they focus on the life and accomplishments of current or former luminaries in the business, scientific and cultural areas. These can be insightful and even inspiring. I'm not sure how original these articles are though. I get the sense IBD buys them from freelance authors and other publications.
The ultra-conservative editorials (of which there are many) may trouble some. But, I haven't found that those views infringe on the business reporting. And, since when do we read only editorials and commentary with which we agree? So, what you get with IBD seems pretty 3-dimensional: (1) A quick but shallow business summary, (2) Some interesting human interest articles, (3) Conservative politics.
John ... Can you suggest any of the above? Not that I object to the conservative papers. Just curious if there are any liberal leaning business publications?
Don't worry Ted. IBD isn't going to steal away any of your readers. And, if you'll stop trying to run the iWatch into the ground, there's a very good chance that people all around the world will soon be wearing your links on their wrists. You might even become a fashion sensation.
Regards
http://money.cnn.com
FYI, AAPL might be braking on their downslide if they can get another up day.
Regards.
I suppose Reuters would be close to even-handed in term of traditional business oriented print media (also available online). I'm not crazy about their reporting though.
I recall in the early days of MFO we had an extensive thread on the topic. Don't know if I'm becomming jaded - or if the financial press has gone downhill in recent years. Everything seems superficial or dumbed down now. I bought a copy of Barron's while travelling recently and barely looked at it. Frankly, the links from Ted and others here provide more insightful reading most of the time.
Some of it may simply be that we want immediacy in this digital age. So, even a solid print publication like the WSJ or FT finds it difficult to keep up with our appetite for information. I hope the OP wasn't trying to make a political statement. Don't think that was the case. IBD, despite the right wing bent, does have some good features as I tried to point out.
Regards
I cannot argue with that view. Trying to find news or financial reporting that is in depth and well written and/or produced is pretty much impossible. MFO is certainly above and beyond anything else available. The Louis Rukeyser show was a favorite until the higher ups felt it was outdated and tried to "fix it".
Everything does seem geared towards the lowest common denominator. (Not meant as an insult to people)
"We've all read the articles, seen the documentaries. Look McDonalds is very bad for you. It's very high in fat and calories and we don't even know where the meat comes from! We're all like, "That's disgusting! (long pause) I'll have a Big Mac, large fries and a two gallon drum of Diet Coke."
I can imagine this conversation: "I hate Fox News, I can't stand those right wingers." Other person: "Do I hear the TV on in the background, what are you watching?" Original person: "Fox News." (or sub in MSNBC.)
I almost think there's something of an addiction in this country to politics because people are looking for something to get angry about.
From the Gaffigan bit: "You may have never have set foot in a McDonalds, but you have your own McDonalds. Maybe instead of a Big Mac you read US Weekly. Hey, that's still McDonalds, it's just served up a little different. Maybe your McDonalds is telling yourself that Starbucks Frappucino is not a milkshake. Maybe you watch Glee. It's all McDonalds, McDonalds of the soul. Momentary pleasure followed by incredible guilt eventually leading to cancer."
“Trying to find news or financial reporting that is in depth and
well written and/or produced is pretty much impossible.”
I’ve heard this complaint many times and here’s a thought –
The financial stuff that we read and hear these days
is just about the same as the stuff we read and heard
many years ago… it’s just that we’ve grown up, learned a lot,
and the financial media has not, has nothing new to tell us – and likely never will.
So, the ball is in our court.
.....No, I don't bet there IS a "lefty" publication that might be comparable to the WSJ in terms of reputation and thoroughness. I get the WSJ for the financial reporting, not for its laissez faire capitalist stance. It is indeed quite thorough. There's been some sort of format adjustment lately. I sniff a step to dumb it down, like &^%$#@*!!!! everything ELSE.
The editorials everywhere you look, both Left and Right, have become way too predictable for me to give them much attention. My own political leanings are to the Left of the "Left." Today in the USA, what's referred to as the political "Left" is actually centrist. Which would put the mainstream "Right" somewhere over there, off the chart.
Eisenhower was a Republican. Anyone see the differences between himself and the current iteration? Unrecognizable.
Regards,
Ted
What is it? 175 over 140 or something like that?
But, what the heck - I'll take a look at your daily agglomeration and see what might be of interest. And a sincere thank you for all your hard work.
However - as OJ pointed out, you're not yet in charge. I kinda wish you were though, because ignoring your decrees would be just as much fun as it used to be under Roy.
Regards,
Ted
That's very good to hear. Thanks for reporting back.
for financial reporting, FT seems based on facts, if anyone is interested.
Some very exercised folks and heated submittals here.
No political biases here. None.
No liberal lunatic hatch job here. None.
No right-wingnut hatch job here. None.
Yeh, sure.
MFOers sometimes recognize that it is a waste of time to advocate political positions on a website committed to mutual fund and investment interchanges. Yeh, for sure.
These types of exchanges forever fail to sway a single convert. I suppose it makes folks feel good, but its effectiveness is hugely speculative. Being wrong on political matters is never questioned.
As Moliere observed: “It infuriates me to be wrong, when I know I’m right”.
I’m sure MFOers are more balanced and more open-minded when making an investment decision. At least, I hope so.
All this is nonsense; it’s smoke and mirrors that is misplaced on a financial website. Just my honest opinion.
Best Wishes.