Nassim Taleb is sceptic as well
http://coyoteprime-runningcauseicantfly.blogspo...
[Well Roubini had Summers on his payroll, so he is a defender]
Liquidity does not replace solvency.

In contrast, ZH regularly posts stuff that is not fact checked and turns out to be wrong. When I see them wrong so much about the area where I have expertise I can't possibly trust their content in those areas where I don't have expertise.

So ZH has no name, no bio, an unreliable blogging record and now suspect ethics. People seem to think that access to a Bloomberg and many viewers gives them credibility but my experience says it doesn't.

My biggest objection/worry, whatever you call it is that ZH contributors do not aspire to this journalistic standard, which undermines their credibility.

My answer is that the defenders of the status quo are very effective at protecting their turf.

So, you have two alternatives in dealing with that: unmask yourself as the enemy with a frontal assault, taking on all the counter-attack this will engender; or try a more subtle approach in which you insinuate yourself into a more prominent and well-connected position from which to affect change.

I clearly prefer the latter route which I see as making a difference with the political blogosphere. ZH prefers the latter approach. Both can be effective, but ZH's approach is most effective in times of acute stress and crisis. IMO, that time has passed (for the moment).

So, yes, TD's coming out helps do that. I understand why they are anonymous: Calculated Risk, Tanta and Yves Smith are/were also semi-anonymous also.

But, partially because of my own experience, I tend to think it puts them in a situation that will ultimately limit their effectiveness.

No it raises their credibility. They are employing people who know how the game is played (although this guy was a bit foolish to get caught for 780$). Read citiboy about the mindset. And who pays for and profits from cnbc?

ZH is about using your own brain. I would appreciate better quality sometimes, but then there are high quality comments clarifying things. Don't expect to get spoon-fed.

Which is why the anonymity works so well. You have to answer the content of the attack, not the messenger delivering it.

What you just said reads as if you believe the story, as if TD needs to “come out” and gain redemption before his words have credibility. Nonsense.

this kind of thing is despicable and why the status quo has lasting power. There are all sorts of barriers erected that impede change – one of them being people's understandable reluctance to associate with others labeled 'disreputable.'

While I am not affiliated with Zero hedge, I will continue to link out to them irrespective.

I don't think anonymity will protect them against lawsuits. A friend, the guy running the Implode-O-Meter, has been having to fight his own battles with lawsuits, many of them spurious. This reminds me that people will do anything to discredit you.

I think the right response is to do an end run by co-opting the mainstream media as HuffPo or Politico have done. the US vs. them approach, which is how I see ZH, is less effective in changing things.

But, I understand you have a different opinion, am I right?

I took it one step further in my post asking, “what if the messenger has a past?” The answer is “so what. If he's saying something of value, I want to hear it.” That's why I posted.

However, and this is the key and something i know about, if you're going to threaten the status quo, you have to know they will come after you. And that means you should do everything you can to be above board.

Look at Henry Blodget. He has rehabilitated himself. Same for Spitzer.

http://www.creditwritedowns.com/2008/11/bloombe...

Why in the world are they scrubbing stuff from their site? It angers me, frankly. maybe they have a good reason – probably not, though.

Nevertheless, it raises the question of whether Zero Hedge is a reputable source of information. I would say they generally are but the quality of the information is uneven. And this mixed with the whole manifesto, anonymity stuff makes them a target and also reduces their credibility.

Obviously, someone seeking to maintain the status quo is working to discredit them and they are well-advised to see this as an opportunity to make everything they do on the site above board.

In my view, we are living through a media period like the early days of the Iraq War when the mainstream media sold out and an alternative media sprang up to fill the void. I would like to Zero hedge be a well-regarded part of that effort. Perhaps this can change things from business as usual on Wall Street and Washington.

One can disagree about whether ZH is taking the right approach in presenting an alternative media voice, but we (bloggers) all want them to succeed.

Nassim Taleb is sceptic as well
http://coyoteprime-runningcauseicantfly.blogspo...
[Well Roubini had Summers on his payroll, so he is a defender]
Liquidity does not replace solvency.

In contrast, ZH regularly posts stuff that is not fact checked and turns out to be wrong. When I see them wrong so much about the area where I have expertise I can't possibly trust their content in those areas where I don't have expertise.

So ZH has no name, no bio, an unreliable blogging record and now suspect ethics. People seem to think that access to a Bloomberg and many viewers gives them credibility but my experience says it doesn't.

My biggest objection/worry, whatever you call it is that ZH contributors do not aspire to this journalistic standard, which undermines their credibility.

My answer is that the defenders of the status quo are very effective at protecting their turf.

So, you have two alternatives in dealing with that: unmask yourself as the enemy with a frontal assault, taking on all the counter-attack this will engender; or try a more subtle approach in which you insinuate yourself into a more prominent and well-connected position from which to affect change.

I clearly prefer the latter route which I see as making a difference with the political blogosphere. ZH prefers the latter approach. Both can be effective, but ZH's approach is most effective in times of acute stress and crisis. IMO, that time has passed (for the moment).

So, yes, TD's coming out helps do that. I understand why they are anonymous: Calculated Risk, Tanta and Yves Smith are/were also semi-anonymous also.

But, partially because of my own experience, I tend to think it puts them in a situation that will ultimately limit their effectiveness.

No it raises their credibility. They are employing people who know how the game is played (although this guy was a bit foolish to get caught for 780$). Read citiboy about the mindset. And who pays for and profits from cnbc?

ZH is about using your own brain. I would appreciate better quality sometimes, but then there are high quality comments clarifying things. Don't expect to get spoon-fed.

Which is why the anonymity works so well. You have to answer the content of the attack, not the messenger delivering it.

What you just said reads as if you believe the story, as if TD needs to “come out” and gain redemption before his words have credibility. Nonsense.

this kind of thing is despicable and why the status quo has lasting power. There are all sorts of barriers erected that impede change – one of them being people's understandable reluctance to associate with others labeled 'disreputable.'

While I am not affiliated with Zero hedge, I will continue to link out to them irrespective.