As a general rule we tend to steer clear of stories dealing Wall St. or finance because we know next to nothing about either. However, after glancing at the homepage of the New York Times a number of times today it became apparent even to us that things are really bad (right?). So we decided to do a little reading. Along the way, in an effort to figure out what is going on with Fannie and Freddie, and why the WSJ homepage was down, and whether or not a NYT “panic piece” had anything to do with all this and by the way, if you are expecting any answers no need to read further we stumbled across a story we did understand! Bloggers arguing with each each other.
So what, right? Well it turns out one of the bloggers happens to be Andrew Ross Sorkin of the NYT who does the DealBook blog there. Apparently he wrote a column last week about rumormongering on Wall Street (it’s bad, people should be shot!…well not really but you get the point) and the thing is when John Carney at DealBreaker called him out for it (as bloggers do, freedom of speech being what it is) saying “the notion of pursuing rumor mongers is potentially far more dangerous than spreading false rumors” (Felix Salmon of Portfolio and The Deal’s editor, Bob Teitelman also had issues with Sorkin’s take) Sorkin responded to him directly and in sort of sharp terms (for the NYT anyway) saying: “With apologies to Mr. Carney whose point of view was shared by others this argument is self-serving and, frankly, nuts.” (Wait! How come Sorkin is allowed to use the ‘N’ word but no one else over there is? Hmmm). Carney then hit back at the Times “Wonderboy” with a further explanation and today Bob Teitleman is weighing in.
Anyway, we just thought it was interesting to note that the Times had deigned to break some sort of online newspaper fourth wall and call out a blogger. (Is this a sign that the playing field leveling out?) It’s sort of like that time when Gail Collins defended MoDo in the comments section of Clark Hoyt’s column, except when that happened we understood what they were talking about.