Trey, just like to point out yet another nail in the coffin of what used to be called "financial journalism."
I looked at today's Dow Jones piece again and realized that almost the exact same article appeared on Dow Jones last year right around 7/30-7/31/97, only it was Dan Niles and Sandy Harriman (?) talking about how DRAM prices had risen from 6.70 to 7.10.
So Dow Jones in their piece on MU today chooses to run the "expert commentary" of someone who was recommending MU @ 49 last year on the basis of DRAM prices rising up from 6.70 to 7.10 at a time when the stock is not only down over 30% from the time of publication, but the price of those same chips (which according to "Mr. short-term DRAM price" were all set to rise) were DOWN roughly 80% as of a few weeks ago from last year's memorable Niles prediction as carried by Dow Jones?
What does that say about Dow Jones? They run the same story with the same "expert" and we're supposed to act as if we didn't notice the similarity of the timing, the content, and the "expert" (not to mention the fact that this same expert was wrong on the direction of DRAM prices. How wrong? Even after "recovering" back up to 2, they're still DOWN roughly 72% from the point last year when he said they were going up)?
Is there some kind of unwritten rule in financial journalism that prevents these people from putting analyst comments in context?
Are they afraid they'll lose their "sources"?
IMHO, the only way Dow Jones, CNBC, Bloomberg, Reuters or any of the other major "news" orgs. would lose their "sources" is if they didn't pay their phone bills.
It's not "conspiracy theory"...
...it's called "media relations" and IMHO the editors who play into the game it should be running hot-dog stands instead of newsrooms.
Good trading,
Tom |
