Chris Byron, of the NY Post, wrote an interesting article today.
Interesting, because he got so much so very right, and then went off the reservation.
First, what he got right – that the SEC’s track record in dealing with abusive hedge funds and mega-criminals has been abysmal, and that the leadership of the Commission has been deficient for years.
Couldn’t be more in agreement on that.
The problem I have is where he berates the SEC for issuing subpoenas to Carol, and Herb, and Cramer, stating that it is a snipe hunt, that this is all a waste of time, that the subpoenas were “wrong headed”, etc.
My problem with Chris, with whom I ordinarily agree, is that he is full of it.
Why?
Because he has no way of knowing what the SEC knows, or why they issued those subpoenas, or how well the case has been investigated by the professionals in Enforcement responsible for these things.
He's just decided that they are wrong-headed, well, you know, just because.
This typifies the NY media spin on the issue, BTW. Ignored are data points like the CNBC poll showing 89% favored and supported the SEC in issuing the subpoenas. Rather, we are treated to reporters who are content to act as judge and jury, completely absent any facts but that: 1) Subpoenas were issued; and 2) That 4 TSCM execs sold many millions of dollars of stock between when they were issued, and when they told the public; and, 3) That a judge in Marin, who does have some of the facts, ruled that the case against Gradient and Rocker Partners would go forward; and 4) The SEC’s Enforcement division, who also has some of the facts, felt that there was sufficient evidence to issue the subpoenas.
So how does Chris know what he pretends to know? What facts or data does he have that we, or better yet, the SEC, don’t?
We are not told. Presumably he doesn’t have any idea what he is talking about, and is rather expressing an opinion, which, through declaration, is expressed as established fact.
That is a shame, as when you have reporters and columnists articulating uninformed opinion as though they possess proprietary insights, you wind up with bad journalism.
I’ll offer an example: I don’t have any idea whether the subpoenas were warranted. Just don’t know. Because I don’t work at the SEC.
And I know what I don’t know. I don’t pretend that I do. I don’t claim that the subpoenas were unwarranted, or that this is all a snipe hunt, because I don’t have any data to support that position.
And I understand that I don’t know what I am talking about.
I do know a few things that we all do. That the SEC felt justified in going forward and issuing them. That a CNBC poll showed that 89% of respondents support that decision. That a bunch of insiders sold when the info was unknown to the public. That a judge ruled that there was enough compelling evidence to move forward.
My problem is that the reporting coming out of NY has been completely different than the coverage anywhere else. Take Cox’s role in this last week. The WSJ ran an editorial indicating that Cox had rebuked his Enforcement folks.
Which was false and misleading. He didn’t, and said so on CNBC. But the WSJ ran that as though it was the truth. And didn’t correct it after he came on and said, “hogwash.”
We have been treated to article after article making assumptions which have no basis, and then act as though those assumptions hold water, building up a hyperbolic head of rhetorical steam using faux, contrived outrage as their catalyst.
Guess what, guys? Nobody is buying it. The poll numbers show us that. So do the articles from other areas of the country. Its just you, the lazy, complicit, NY press corps that is trying to sell that tired fish story. The rest of us get it.
I do agree with Chris about the soft leadership at the Commission – that Cox had to do some mealy-mouthed, hand wringing meeting to come up with “special” rules for “special” cases like journalists triggers my gag reflex. Why not special rules for outraged lapinesque bloggers? Or attorneys? Or chiropractors? Why are journalists treated as though they are somehow a rarified breed – presuming that Jim Cramer is even a journalist – which he isn’t? Does having a show where you tout stocks make you a journalist?
How about Tom Calandra? Or Dan Dorman? Weren’t they journalists, and crooked to boot? Would they have been subject to these same “special” rules? Should we have all been outraged at their investigations?
How about the journalist in the Abramoff matter, that was getting paid $2K per article to advance whatever agenda Abramoff wanted touted? Or the journalist in Birmingham that expressed outrage that her pay wasn’t higher, for advancing stories and spin sympathetic to the HealthSouth CEO? Are they special cases, deserving of special rules?
Or is it only “journalists” affiliated with Wall Street that are breathing this rarified air?
I have an idea, Chris. How about you wait until enough facts are known to actually have an informed opinion, and leave out the “I’m outraged” shtick from your otherwise fine work? You don’t know if those subpoenaed are guilty as sin of all sorts of unimagined larceny, or as innocent as newborn lambs. And neither do I. But I know that the SEC thinks there’s enough there to make some hard choices. And so do you.
You decry that as a witch hunt. I say, jury’s out, and let’s let the cops do their job.
And the American public agrees with me, according to CNBC’s own poll.
So lose the pre-judging in the media bit. You guys were wrong about Cox scolding Enforcement, and could be wrong about this, as well. The premise that the SEC is acting irrationally or frivolously is insulting. Frankly, writing false and misleading articles and letting them run is acting frivolously, and I think we’ve all seen enough flawed and biased coverage out of the NEW YORK Post, the NEW YORK Times, NEW YORK-based Barron’s and NEW YORK’s finest, the WSJ.
We get it.
So now let’s let the SEC do what they have to do.