Earlier today we reported about a very sad development for the freedom of speech, or at least the illusion thereof, when one of, if not the best, critical Federal Reserve reporter in the mainstream media, WSJ's Pedro da Costa found he was no longer "invited" to the Fed's quarterly press conference. His transgression: daring to ask Yellen some very uncomfortable questions during the March 2015 press conference. To wit: PEDRO DA COSTA. Pedro da Costa with Dow Jones Newswires. I guess I have two follow-ups, one with regard to Craig’s question. So, before the IG’s investigation, according to Republican Congressman Hensarling’s letter to your office, he says that, “It is my understanding that although the Federal Reserve’s General Counsel was initially involved in this investigation, the inquiry was dropped at the request of several members of the FOMC.” Now, that predates the IG. I want to know if you could tell us who are these members of the FOMC who struck down this investigation? And doesn’t not revealing these facts kind of go directly against the sort of transparency and accountability that you’re trying to bring to the central CHAIR YELLEN. That is an allegation that I don’t believe has any basis in fact. I’m not going to go into the details, but I don’t know where that piece of information could possibly have come from. As it turns out, the allegation did have "basis in fact" because two months after this exchange, we learned that not only was there a parallel investigation into the Fed's leaks in addition to the Hensarling subpoena, a criminal one by the Department of Justice at that, but that the Fed had indeed declined to comply with the subpoena as Pedro suggested. The former Reuters reporter also had this testy exchange. PEDRO DA COSTA. If I could follow up on his question. I think when you get asked about financial crimes and the public hears you talk about compliance, you get a sense that there’s not enough enforcement involved in these actions, and that it’s merely a case of kind of trying to achieve settlements after the fact. Is there a sense in the regulatory community that financial crimes need to be punished sort of more forcefully in order for them to be—for there to be an actual deterrent against unethical behavior? CHAIR YELLEN. So, the—you’re talking about within banking organizations? So, the focus of regulators—the banking regulators—is safety and soundness, and what we want to see is changes made as rapidly as possible that will eliminate practices that are unsafe and unsound. We can’t—only the Justice Department can bring criminal action, and they have taken up cases where they think that that’s appropriate. In some situations, when we are able to identify individuals who were responsible for misdeeds, we can put in place prohibitions that bar them from participating in banking, and we have done so and will continue to do so. At this point we will refrain from bringing up the constant narrative of Goldman's total and utter control of the NY Fed: between our disclosures from 5 years ago, to the recent release of the "Secret Goldman Sachs Tapes" thanks to Carmen Segarra, this is well known to all, however we will observe the irony that just yesterday a US Court found that the Fed's bailout of at least one financial entity (AIG) was illegal and a major overstep of not only the boundaries of the Fed, claiming that Section 13(3) did not permit the Fed to acquire a borrower's equity as consideration for a bailout loan (i.e., a "nationalization" by the Fed), but that the actions "in acquiring control of AIG constituted a taking without just compensation and an illegal exaction, both in violation of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution." Instead, we want to highlight something completely different: today's absolute failure at investigative reporting, and the worst example of journalistic capture by the Federal Reserve - worse even than what we reported in "On The New York Fed's Editorial Influence Over The WSJ" - that we have ever seen. Unlike three months ago, it was not what was said, but rather what wasn't, which also happens to be the key issue eating away modern US society, far worse than whether the Fed is blowing the biggest asset bubble of all time (it is), if it is woefully behind the curve on raising rates (it is), or whether the US "recovery" is so strong a 0.25% hike from 0% after 7 years will crash the economy (not even worth commenting). The issue is the criminality, competence and corruption of that most important of organizations in modern society, the US Federal Reserve. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-06-17/today-financial-journalism-suffered-epic-failure
Even ZH haters shouldn't have a hard time getting on board with this. It's absolutely obvious to anyone with half a brain something stinks here.
WSJ use to be must reading for anyone interested before the internet. Rupert touched it and dumbed it down like he does everything he touches, and nobody takes it seriously (let alone reads it) anymore.
What's next? Tammy from People's Magazine, "Ms Yellon, you are one of the most powerful woman on earth, yet you have never indicated to us what your sexual preference is. Would you care to comment?"
National Enquirer: "How will Janet's weight problem affect interest rates?" "Brad and Angelina go short!"
otherwise, I wouldn't let the Wall Street Journal lick my ass. They have lost all credibility and nobody takes them seriously anymore.
and it's a shame, because at one time it was a really classy newspaper, and even if you didn't understand it, when you read it, it just made you feel smarter