|
|
|
|
|
by krok
1963 days ago
|
|
> These points doubtless make me appear to be a complacent shill for the financial industry, talking down to the rubes For context, in 2008 John Authers was a (very senior) Financial Times reporter on Wall Street. He became aware that there were queues of financial workers outside retail branches of banks in South Manhattan. These people had cash in various US banks, more than the insured deposit limit, and were withdrawing it and/or shifting it between accounts to protect themselves against the bankruptcy of major banks. They has a better idea than the newspaper-reading public of what was about to go down. John decided that this wasn't worthy of being covered in the FT. He did however queue up himself to move his own money so it was protected. You can judge for yourself whether that makes him likely to be a complacent shill for the financial industry, talking down to the rubes. |
|
https://www.ft.com/content/1fcb4d60-b1df-11e8-99ca-68cf89602...
"Was this the right call? I think so. All our competitors also shunned any photos of Manhattan bank branches. The right to free speech does not give us right to shout fire in a crowded cinema; there was the risk of a fire, and we might have lit the spark by shouting about it."
Enraging. You're allowed to shout fire in a crowded theater if there is, you know, a fire. Tapping all the people in the box seats on the shoulder to give them a heads up about the fire so they can get to the exit before everyone stampedes for it is sociopathic, not social-minded.
I guess it's to his credit that he admitted to this, in the same sense that I'd credit a murderer confessing his crime and bringing the police to the body.