Top Headlines from Popular Financial Media Outlets
It's unanimous. The Big 5 financial media outlets (aka the Financial-Industrial Complex) are all in agreement that today's tepid market rally was caused by hopes of a China-U.S. trade deal. I'll get to that in a minute.
When you read the headlines below, does it strike you that they could have all been written by the same person? And could that person work for the Ministry of Information rather than Wall Street or the financial media? (I'm only half-kidding about this.)
"It would be ideal if we could have an uncontrolled flow of information, but that would only lead to disenchantment, protests and chaos. Better to feed the people with easily digestible information pablum"
Buster Poindexter, former Director of the Ministry of Information
One thing is clear, at least to me. The China-U.S. trade deal theme is an agreed-upon talking point, regardless of where it came from. Here are the headlines:
Let's drill down into the Barron's article because it's the only one that avoided the trade deal talking point as the headline. Congratulations, Barron's editors. From the article:
"Stocks finished in the black on Wednesday after President Trump told reporters that a deal with China could happen 'sooner than you think.'"
The skeptic in me must ask you, dear readers, just how credible is Trump's statement here? How soon is "sooner than you think," anyway? And more to the point, what would a trade deal look like?
Would Xi cave in to Trump's demands and give him what he wants, or will Trump cave and spin it as a victory as he's done so many times in the past?
What the clever folks at Barron's have done is to switch the headline from "trade deal" to "it's the economy, not impeachment, stupid." In my view they get credit for headline creativity but not for content. Same old, same old narrative.
Why the financial media loves these kinds of talking points.
First, it's a safe space for them. One of the first rules of financial journalism is... don't stick your neck out unless your editor-in-chief authorizes you to do so. There is little upside in going against the conventional wisdom, even if you're right.
But the downside from being wrong can be deep and painful. Mavericks who get it wrong often end up on the weather desk in East Function Junction Kentucky.
Second, it's all about clicks and eyeballs. Media outlets rely on AD revenue, not Pulitzers. So, leave the meaty stuff to real journalists at WAPO, NYT, FT, and others. Just stick to the talking points and everyone gets to go home on time.
Third, give 'em what they want. The editors understand that their readers want and need a nicely wrapped narrative that explains the reasons for the daily ups and downs in the market. It doesn't need to be accurate, or thoughtfully researched. It just needs to be simple and relatable.
Fourth, who's going to fact-check this pablum anyway? Well, that's where I come in. There is a dearth of fact-checking sources in the realm of financial media. I'm one small voice that isn't burdened by someone else's editorial rules or marketing mandates. I'm free to call it like I see it.
And that's what I'm going to do with this new series. If you want to follow along, you can register for a free membership to this website. You'll get alerts when I publish updates, and other original articles about the art of investing.
Related article: Market Report 9-16-19