RealIzakaminska

I have never been paid by a hedge fund, and I think the assertion that hedge funds pay you to circulate rumours is really off.

Most journalists are not in journalism for the money. They're in it because they are motivated to tell the truth or shine a light on what's really going on in the world.

Yes, HFs will often call up trying to push around rumours that benefit their positions. But unless you are total newbie you learn to dismiss these calls. You always have to evaluate the agenda of everyone who is calling to pitch you a story.

I really think this hedge fund thing is a false trail. The idea journalists are secretly pushing hedge fund agendas and profiting from it on the sidelines is really far fetched. There are biases. There are agendas. But this is not the problem.

The bigger corrupting issues are 1) dependence on access journalism. 2) advertising/sponsor influence 3) Journalists being paid lots of money to do public speaking engagements by corps and banks 4) personal crusading agendas.

In the "hedge funds are corrupting journalists" line, the hedge funds are a patsy ! it's such an easy way for fraudulent corps or corps in general to discredit bad news stories about them. "You can't trust this accusation from x journalist, he is in league with evil short sellers!" And then the journo gets smeared to high heaven.

It's not a viable theory. It's frankly ridiculous. In my opinion it is a narrative that has been weaponised by PRs to discredit journalism that upsets their clients.

The question doesn't really make sense. Everyone has a boss. Sometimes stories are originated from the bottom up. Other times an editor says "Hey we really need to do more stuff on this Facebook story". So the answer is: it really depends. But it's a non sequitur because what applies to journalists in my answer, also applies to editors.

No I stick by that comment.

In my experience (and I know lots of journalists) most journalists are motivated by truth telling, curiosity and a desire for recognition as insightful intellectual forces.

Making money is almost always a secondary consideration. Yes there are exceptions to the rules. I would differentiate on-air personality types from core text journalists too.

Rather than asking if HFs are corrupting journalists (which I think is a silly assertion and totally not the case in any broad systemic way), the better question to ask is whether journalists are increasingly confusing activism for journalism. That I think is a much bigger problem. But I also think it is often unwitting. And I suspect that's what you are getting to with respect to your BBC reference.

Is there too much political-crusading journalism out there? Yes, that's entirely possible. Is it motivated or influenced by hedge funds? I don't think so. It's motivated by much more complex corrupting forces (or if you think you're doing the right thing, you might consider those forces enlightening).

Because journalists are often motivated by "righteousness" they can easily fall into campaigning activism. That can impact their neutrality. But frankly I'm not sure neutral journalism really ever existed. Everyone has biases. Being a campaigning journalist isn't bad, it's just a different type of journalism. It's less objective and more judgmental. It's fine as long as the biases are declared and transparent.

The concern with the BBC is: are biased editorial agendas bleeding through their neutrality mandate? I still contend that in the news sphere, the fact that both the left and the right hate the BBC implies they're actually upholding this value as well as they can be. If one side saw them as a champion and the other did not, that would be more telling.

Libel is a very big issue, and I think as a start-up venture my biggest concern. When you are with a big established brand like the FT there is a resident in-house lawyer to look through all your copy to make sure there is no libel risk. But even then, if you write something contentious you start to get letters. I haven't personally been in any court proceedings over anything I've written or allowed to be published, however, I have been sent many threatening legal letters in my time. And just dealing with letters is expensive enough.

How journalism protects itself from legal action is one of the things I am trying to address with my start up.

As it stands some of the best journalism doesn't get published because those with power and money get wind of the story coming-out via rights of reply (which are absolutely essential and fair), and then lawyer up. The problem for any publisher isn't whether they will win in a court stand off, it's whether they will have balance sheet to support the extensive pre-trial costs before any formal litigation even starts. For small publications this is a big issue.

Alphaville's biggest court related affair was related to the Wirecard story, in which legal intimidation was a key strategy in trying to muffle the journalism. But this happens all the time. And it is intimidating.

On the other, there is also an asymmetry the other way. It's incredibly easy to get away with libelling those on the bottom end of the ladder and who you think will never have the resources to challenge you. So bad journalists can get away with terrible smearing and sloppy journalism if it pertains to average people.

This asymmetry is leading to the pollution of the information landscape in my opinion. The really important work that should be circulating never gets out (even if in an actual contest in court it would defy a libel action) while the poor quality journalism gets to circulate far and wide.

What we need is a marketplace for bridge financing libel. For both ends. And to do that competently and price it efficiently you need a credit system for journalism.