But they are interesting, people should know about them. The more they attack us, you know, we have barrels of ink and stacks of money, and all the resources in the World at our disposal, legal, and via our media, to crush them, or at least bring them to some degree where they cannot do this with impunity. And, at this point in time, the Post's stance. I'm ready to sue one of them for libel or slander. Why not turn the tables? They say you can't do it. Herb said he thought about it. But why not? They want to be journalists? You want to write for the public? Here you go, now you know what we live through. And.. fine, we'll wage war with you as long as you want.
So we're very much prepared to do these things and be aggressive. But one thing we're not prepared to do, and the one thing I have advised our reporters to do, is not to deal with these people on their own terms. We do not refer.. we do not post to boards anymore. In fact, I told Roddy Boyd that I would cut his hands off if another one of his emails showed up on the Web. It's careless, and we don't know what road we are going down litigation wise. Is an email from a journalist. can that be.. can you be sued for libel in an email? You know, I don't know where it goes. And, so were being careful about that. We're not going to engage these people on their own terms. We know the rules and we know where everything shapes up.
So that's basically my response to this. Again, these are small companies, the ones that Herb's been knocked around with a little bit, they're small companies and they're not important to what I do in the course of a day, unless we write about them. And we're prepared to take them on wherever they'd like to be taken on, primarily court, if it comes to that."
Wow. So this bastion of freedom of speech indicates that they will use their superior economic resources to crush those who criticize them, in order to raise the cost of that free speech to a level where all those who dare mock or criticize them are effectively silenced by the threat of lawsuits.
That, my friends, is what we are actually dealing with. The unbridled arrogance of this perspective is breathtaking. And the hypocrisy is stunning. I mean, on the one hand, they are collectively mewling about their being victims of persecution, and on the other, we get a candid view of how they view the superior resources they command - instruments to "crush" their critics and any who dare expose them.
Take some time to digest that part of it, and let's move to the rest of it. I'll post the full transcript later on in the week - for now, I am simply savoring each nugget, wondering what to write about next.
But I digress.
In another section Calaruso takes pains to distance himself from the Page 6 guy who was allegedly extorting business personalities, based upon that smugly superior ability to leverage the publication's power and connections in the media - you know, the ability to tar and feather a guy or company by putting out the word to kindreds in the financial press to do so - to "crush" whoever the unfortunate target is. And yet, for a brief moment, we see that perspective is not an anomaly. It is not atypical at all.
Tut tut, I could go on for hours at the implications and contradictions in just those few words, but why belabor it. Let's move on to the rest of the quote's message, and tone.
First, we have a guy who probably has never been more than CEO of his checkbook, pronouncing those who have built billion-dollar companies to be second rate. Now, that's fine, opinions are like journalists - there are many flavors. But understand that this guy has never been a CEO. He is an editor. Who is discussing how best to silence and crush his opponents. I still can't get past that part. But I'll try.
He then advises his staff not to deal with "these people" on their own terms. Presumably that is where they are accountable for their statements, just as their targets are.
I actually agree with him regarding the email thing - I believe that the email exchange between the Businessweek reporter and Dr. Byrne of OSTK is a fascinating glimpse of how the supposedly unbiased press operate - but it is not flattering to the press to be exposed in that manner, and they should take care to preserve their veneer of civility and not allow the laymen to see how they actually go about their job.
There is much, much more in this - more Herb than one could wish for, charming examples of the insider boy's club which certain segments of the NY financial press clearly are members of, further demonstrations of how the press views its role.
We will crush those who dare oppose us.
What do you say to that?
----------
Last week, a broker at Citi was sanctioned by the NASD for mis-marking his naked shorted transactions as long sales, in order to circumvent the short selling restrictions, and presumably not have his orders show up in the legitimate short interest.
This is precisely what I have been opining occurs, much more frequently than anyone believes. The industry hides its naked short selling by lying.
Simple.
What is noteworthy is that it hasn't gotten very much press. Here is a broker for one of the major prime brokers, who performed 100 trades, not ONE of which was flagged or caught by the system.
How large were the trades? Thousands, or hundreds of thousands of shares? Who were the companies? Were they companies like CXN, who can't be shorted? Or were they OSTK shares - a company on the SHO list, where short selling is supposedly tightly restricted?
We don't know. That is secret.
Why is it secret? Again, we don't know. Presumably because if we knew, it would expose Citi to lawsuits from companies and shareholders harmed by the practice - and we can't have that.
So we aren't told.
And note that even though this is a breach of many of the rules that create a pretense of market integrity, the broker didn't even have to admit guilt. He was suspended for 90 days, and had to disgorge a chunk of cash, and pay a fine, but he is not going to jail.
This is our market.
And then we wonder when companies like CXN take the position that they are getting reamed by the industry, and that the same brokers whose staff violate the rules designed to protect investors, while the industry rolls its eyes and takes the position that, "That can't happen - it's against the rules!"
I mean, what kind of a farce is it when 100 trades, ostensibly sizable, can be mis-marked, and NOBODY BATS AN EYE?
Is it just me, or is it increasingly apparent that if you commit larcenous acts on Wall Street, the worst that can happen is you may have to spend a month or two on vacation?
WTF? WTFF?