More on Hedge Funds and Journalists; Who Pays for what you see?

Discussion in 'Wall St. News' started by patchie, Jan 7, 2010.

  1. patchie


    New Evidence Raises Serious Questions About Kingsford Capital’s “Donation” to the Columbia Journalism Review
    Posted on 06 January 2010 by Mark Mitchell
    Tags: Columbia Journalism Review, Dan Loeb, donation, Escala, Jim Chanos, Kingsford Capital, Kynikos, naked short selling, SAC Capital, Steve Cohen, Third Point Capital
    A blog published by the University of North Carolina School of Journalism reported recently that Steve Cohen of hedge fund SAC Capital managed to kill a story by Reuters reporter Matt Goldstein. It seems that Goldstein was going to shed some light on allegations that Cohen engaged in insider trading. Cohen didn’t like that, and got in touch with Goldstein’s superiors.

    It remains unclear how Cohen convinced Goldstein’s superiors to shelve their journalistic ethics, but it is not surprising that he succeeded. After all, Cohen is “the most powerful trader on the Street.” He is also part of a network of closely affiliated hedge fund managers that for many years all but dictated much of what was published by the New York financial press.

    Three years ago, while working for the Columbia Journalism Review, a magazine affiliated with Columbia University’s school of journalism in New York, I began investigating this network of hedge funds. I worked for many months on this story, and compiled evidence that the hedge fund managers, including Steve Cohen, had developed extremely odd relationships with small number of dishonest journalists.
  2. You meant to say "public relations ethics". :cool:
  3. patchie


    Reuters editor in chief’s regular staff call focuses on killed story
    January 6th, 2010


    Reuters editor in chief David Schlesinger held his regular, quarterly staff conference call on Wednesday, but the questions he got from reporters and editors today primarily focused on the wire service’s decision to kill a story last month about hedge fund operator Steven Cohen, according to those on the call who confirmed its existance and the discussion to Talking Biz News.

    Talking Biz News reported last month that the story, prepared by staff writer Matthew Goldstein, was killed after Cohen complained about it to upper management at Reuters. Schlesinger denied that the call from Cohen had anything to do with the killing of the story in an e-mail to the staff last month, and he reiterated that position on Wednesday, stating that all editorial decisions are made based on the content.

    It was a lively call with several questions from reporters about what happened. Schlesinger addressed the issue in his opening remarks, before the questions, describing blog postings about the incident as false. Staff writer Robert MacMillan, who blogs about the media, was the first to ask questions about the issue, according to others on the call.

    Schlesinger again defended the decision. He said that he merely raised questions to global company news editor Jack Reerink and left it to Reerink to take the decision.

    Schlesinger said on the call that there was no influence exerted by Thomson Reuters executive Devin Wenig and that the decision was made on editorial grounds.

    Schlesinger did not reply to an e-mail seeking comment, and MacMillan declined to comment about what he asked or any other part of the call.

    Asked whether he meant it was a bad story, Schlesinger praised Goldstein as one of Reuters’ most talented reporters and said: “The story could have run… it wasn’t a bad story… there was nothing wrong with the reporting,” according to one staff member who listened to the call. But in the judgment of the editors, according to one staff member, Schlesinger said, “It wasn’t ready for prime time.”

    Schlesinger did not go into the details of what the story said or why it was not judged appropriate to run it.

    I wonder, without Cohen's call would the article have run? Bet it would have met all the standards necessary until cohen came in and derailed it. Clearly it is time the regulators start taking a more serious look at these relationships.