If you're saying that markets do not move on information alone and then several sentences later saying that serious investor _do_ let this type of information affect them? Looks suspiciously like self contradiction.
And I'll bet the WSJ has always done this. Pick up an issue from 1950 and see if it isn't tying current news stories to the market. It was the same then.
This seems to me to be another version of "things were so much better way back when and now it's all garbage"
But I'll bow out. I didn't RTA. Just found your comments popular yet (to me) seemingly uninformed.
> If you're saying that markets do not move on information alone and then several sentences later saying that serious investor _do_ let this type of information affect them? Looks suspiciously like self contradiction.
I think that your definitions of 'serious investor' are divergent.
"uninformed" in the sense of failure to understand the role of media. Not uninformed in the sense of failure to read easily digestible pieces of the market.
All media (that I know of) have engaged in a mix of news, speculation, and opinion for my entire life -- and probably centuries before I was born.
This article seemed to me so much like restating the obvious that I was very underwhelmed.
And I'll bet the WSJ has always done this. Pick up an issue from 1950 and see if it isn't tying current news stories to the market. It was the same then.
This seems to me to be another version of "things were so much better way back when and now it's all garbage"
But I'll bow out. I didn't RTA. Just found your comments popular yet (to me) seemingly uninformed.