
The Distorted News Epidemic and Bridgewater's Recent Experience With The WSJ - ry4n413
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/fake-distorted-news-epidemic-bridgewaters-recent-experience-ray-dalio
======
snowwrestler
I'm not a fan of the expansion of the concept of "fake news" to include any
story a subject thinks was not fair. 

There are stories that were completely made up by Estonian teenagers, with no
connection to facts at all, which were widely republished and shared.  That's
the "fake news" problem. 

The problem of journalists misrepresenting a company (either by mistake or on
purpose) is as old as the hills.  It was as true back when the media was widely
trusted, as it is now. 

~~~
jyriand
Can you please link your source to "stories made up by Estonian teenagers". 
I'm estonian and never heard of any teenagers making fake news. 

~~~
fudgie
I'm guessing he was referring to the Macedonian teenagers from
[https://www.buzzfeed.com/craigsilverman/how-macedonia-
became...](https://www.buzzfeed.com/craigsilverman/how-macedonia-became-a-
global-hub-for-pro-trump-misinfo)

~~~
jyriand
Wouldn't be the first time Estonia is associated with Balkans, probably
because it's actually in Baltics. 

~~~
thick18cm
Well, I too confuse the words Baltics and Balkans while trying to recall one
or the other, but on the basis of their sound, nothing to do with geopolitics,
so I can easily see confusing Macestonia and Esdonia in memory also based on
sound, rather than category confusion.  It's not like Estonian teens wouldn't
be capable of setting up a money making scam site, or any other type of teens
for that matter. 

------
wybiral
Independent fact checking seems like a great idea.  Discrepancies in news
stories should absolutely be pointed out.  But I'm hesitant about the idea of
having an "established party to assess the accuracies of what is being said". 

Are we supposed to censor stories that this party designate as being fake?  Who
should oversee such a thing?  What qualifies as "news"? 

~~~
creaghpatr
An algorithm that points out discrepancies in news coverage is an interesting
idea.  Then it could just label discrepancies and let the audience judge each
piece of coverage in context for themselves. 

Unless a 3rd party fact checker is an open-sourced algorithm I doubt anyone
will accept their definition of 'fact' and 'fake'.  Even then someone could
game it. 

~~~
nerfhammer
Sort of related, newsdiffs.org is useful for telling when the New York Times
silently edits articles, which can be pretty substantial sometimes. 

------
bedhead
I am in the investment world and have long found Dalio to be crazy on the
order of batshit level, and frankly there are a number of issues regarding
Bridgewater that make my BS detector go wild.  Their returns are a complete
mystery to me.  They charge high fees and consistently beat the market with low
volatility, without leverage, and owning an _extremely_ diversified group of
assets, none of which are farther down the risk spectrum (eg equities, VC,
etc).  I haven't seen even the most sophisticated alternative fund allocators
(eg big university endowments) sufficiently explain what it is that
Bridgewater does. 

Unrelated, since Jon Rubinstein is the co-CEO of Bridgewater, perhaps it does
have some relevance to HN. ( Although I have a side bet with a friend that he
will leave in less than 24 months)

~~~
_yosefk
Are you implying that Bridgewater is a Madoff-style Ponzi scheme?  If so, it
will be quite the explosion when it tanks. 

~~~
bedhead
It is probable that it's entirely legit, but my god it spews of so many red
flags. 

Than again, there is always this: [http://time.com/money/4209599/bernie-
madoff-new-ponzi-scheme...](http://time.com/money/4209599/bernie-madoff-new-
ponzi-schemes/)

~~~
sjg007
Seems crazy given that the director of the FBI worked there....

------
johnthealy3
This article resonated with me quite a bit, the Bridgewater connection
notwithstanding.  People love to sensationalize Ray Dalio as a cult figure and,
at the same time, seem to not be able to stand how successful his firm has
been.  My encounters with Bridgewater staff (interviewers, friends, and a day
onsite) all struck me as unusual but refreshing, even though at the time 7-10
years ago I could not succeed in that environment.  Nowadays, I find myself
shooting for a similar level of transparency in my work and personal life and
being much more successful because of it. 

This is a case study of distorted news from an individual who understands the
motivations behind it like few others, because he has been targeted by this
sort of distortion more consistently than most.  Those motivations include:

\- pressure from management to spin a story a certain way \- the reporter's
personal desire to confirm his/her point of view \- the desire to put down
success stories to feel better about oneself

The distortion of news is not the only place in the world where these forces
are at play, but given the platform news organizations have, we must find a
way to control for them. 

------
iamthepieman
"if you have a society where people can't agree on the basic facts, how do you
have a functioning democracy?" 

with a functioning priesthood as the mediator of truth exactly like societies
around the world throughout history have determined the truth.  The question is
not if this will happen, it's "who are currently the priests?" 

~~~
yarou
We (as the tech community) have inherited that role.  How one defines truth is
probably outside of the scope of my reply, so I'll abstain from commenting on
it. 

However, suffice it to say I would rather have a plurality of viewpoints,
where some may be misleading, than a singular viewpoint handed down to me. 

~~~
MBCook
> We (as the tech community) have inherited that role. 

Where do you see that? 

~~~
EdHominem
How do most people choose which articles they're exposed to? 

Usually by going to Facebook or Google News where an algorithm shows them the
thing most-likely to make them click on an ad. 

------
maldusiecle
Billionaire CIO isn't happy with how the Wall Street Journal (a famously
business-friendly newspaper, as its name suggests) covered his company,
rumbles ominously about curtailing free speech for journalists.  That's about
accurate, isn't it? 

~~~
iaw
To illustrate lefstathiou's question:

Where the author says: "The problem is that people who are happy with their
experience and respecting our rules are not allowed to speak with the media so
you end up hearing disproportionately from disgruntled people." 

Do you agree or disagree with this assertion?  I think it's reasonable to
expect that employees seeking to speak with the press are not pleased with the
work environment but to determine what that means wouldn't we need to know
what % of employees speak to the press at Bridgewater relative to other
financial firms? 

Where the author says: "We also offered to put Copeland in contact with three
prominent organizational psychologists and researchers who" ... "had studied
our culture in depth" ... "These researchers" ... "had access to anyone they
wanted to speak with when they did their studies.  Copeland and Hope" ...
"chose not to speak with these experts." 

Do you think this sounds like a fair effort for honest reporting?  Do you think
the author is lying about such an easily verifiable statement or can you
explain why the journalists chose not to speak to these individuals? 

There's more, but reading through the author's words it appears like he made
an honest effort to represent the good and the bad at their company.  Years
ago, the WSJ was considered a pinnacle of financial reporting so when Rupert
Murdoch acquired it there was a lot of concern about the potential for bias to
creep in. 

I worked for a financial company that was the lead story in the New York Times
financial section.  I hold no affection for this company but, having
familiarity with the circumstances they were discussing, it was clear they
misrepresented the facts to make things look as bad as possible. 

A neutral/honest article isn't as sensational as one building a bogeyman.  Is
it possible that this billionaire CIO just has a loud enough voice to point
out how inaccurate the reporting was? 

Any time I see a subject in the news I'm familiar with I see numerous
inaccuracies and misrepresentations, have you had this experience?  Do you
think that phenomenon is limited only to your knowledge domain? 

Yes, the CIO has incentive to discount the article, but do you see how the
journalists may have incentive to undermine the company? 

~~~
DashRattlesnake
Honestly, I think the journalists have a reasonable case to not engage too
closely with stage-managed information that their subjects present them, and
instead seek out their own sources. 

I'd be pretty skeptical of someone who says stuff like:

> We have about 1,500 people who work at Bridgewater, most of whom _love it_
> rather than feel oppressed, so the picture they gleaned from these dozen
> people was clearly not representative [emphasis mine]. 

The CEO's blog post read to me like someone who is upset that their biases an
beliefs (which they view as "accurate") weren't reflected in the reporting,
but it's not "distortion" to fail to report your own distortions. 

------
jay_kyburz
An independent, well funded, public broadcaster. 

I think Australia's ABC is a step in the right direction, but I would like to
see more transparency. 

News organisations should not need to be popular.  They need to be able to tell
us the hard truths.  Journalists need to be given the time and the resources to
do thier job. 

------
Dowwie
Change how journalism is funded and managed.  That's easier said than done, but
it would go a long way towards addressing problems. 

~~~
intended
Like the BBC?  Which is abused roundly by everyone (so about as neutral as
humanly possible)

There's no real solution.  In the end news firms are bought by businesses as
they struggle to survive. 

Businesses need profit, so those firms end up giving ground to the necessities
of survival.  All the firms you see today are the survivors. 

The firms which don't deal in interesting stuff, don't carry much weight in
the mainstream since they aren't "communicating to their core audience."  And
are left for those few people who have the time, patience and willingness to
dig through what is today considered "long form" journalism. 

These firms are in turn targeted by those vested interests who still need the
facts massaged. ( Cut funding!  It's Biased against X groups!  It follows a
liberal agenda!  It's conservative!) 

This leads to the final 3 points. 

1) a fair media is a source of power.  The powerful politically minded will
always vie for control or work to discredit it

2) mainstream media will continue to be a lost cause, and actual discussion of
facts will be done in specialist and scientific journals.  Nothing will survive
the vortex of money and power. 

3) fact checking is now dependent on the moral and intellectual fiber of the
reader.  Those people who cultivate open minds and self doubt will be the few
who make the effort to know the world. ( To what end though, you try to
communicate and it will be lost in the vortex)

~~~
belovedeagle
> ... specialist and scientific journals.  Nothing will survive the vortex of
> money and power. 

You should be wary of the cognitive dissonance being displayed here.  What
makes scientific journals immune to the corrupting influence of money?  Is it
perhaps just that you've up to now had no reason to dislike the political
agenda found therein? 

~~~
eli_gottlieb
What political agenda is pushed in _Nature_? 

~~~
belovedeagle
Here, let me finish that comment for you: "Gotcha!  You don't read this one
specific (if very prestigious) journal I can name and aren't familiar with its
particular foibles, so you must not be able to provide any evidence for your
claim!" 

Actually, there's really only one big politicized issue in the natural
sciences, not counting ethical concerns in biology (I'll let you figure out
what it is on your own).  This is unsurprising given that it's much harder to
twist the facts to suit a narrative. 

The social sciences, on the other hand, are full of politics.  I don't have
links handy, but X% of researchers in some social sciences openly admit to
political discrimination in hiring decisions, for some large X.

------
stupidcar
> The problem is that people who are happy with their experience and
> respecting our rules are not allowed to speak with the media so you end up
> hearing disproportionately from disgruntled people. 

Well, perhaps Dalio should consider extending his "radical transparency" to
include not gagging his supposedly happy employees!? 

------
failrate
I really want The National Enquirer and other tabloids to have a "For
Entertainment Purposes Only" banner on top.  And if I see Dr. Oz gurning at me
from a "health" magazine one more time, I'm going to get a permanent twitch in
my right eye. 

------
rwoodley
This is not a very enlightening article.  Very few people care about
Bridgewater, especially on HN.  More focus on specific issues and possible
fixes with 'distorted news' would have been of interest, but is not present in
this article. 

~~~
jonstokes
I disagree.  I don't know about the specifics that Dalio lays out, but as a
media person who has been on both sides this issue, his detailed account of
the WaPo's alleged journalistic malpractice rings very true. 

In other words, what he describes may or may not have actually happened in
this case, but boy does it look exactly like the kind of thing that used to be
very routine at every level of the old-line print media, from local papers to
big magazines. 

Journos (or, in many cases, their editors) have a sensational story they want
to tell, and they're going to tell that story regardless of how the actual
reporting goes and what facts it turns up.  This happens again and again and
again.  In fact, it used to just be the way things were done, with any positive
deviation from that coming about by happy accident.  Recent incidents that come
to mind are the big Asian nail salon expose that had a ton of problems, or the
infamous Rolling Stone rape piece.  The list goes on, tho. 

So this post is a really good look at how "fake news" has operated for at
least the past six or so decades. 

------
hawkice
I got bizarrely excited when I saw they'd mischaracterized his opinion of
James Comey.  I share a tremendously positive opinion of the current FBI
director, but his handling of tech issues [1] and hiring/firing [2] have been
less than ideal.  There may not be a way to describe people you feel 98% good
about in this media climate.  All the good becomes invisible because the
disagreements become all anyone speaks about. 

And yet, having someone in a prominent role who never disagrees with you is
worthless.  So there are some really bizarre incentives here. 

What's even more bizarre is that e.g. Clapper never got even remotely that
level of non-controversial good-doing-ness, and yet we have dramatically fewer
conversations about that. 

[1]
[http://bigstory.ap.org/article/7d57f576e3f74b6ca4cd3436fbebf...](http://bigstory.ap.org/article/7d57f576e3f74b6ca4cd3436fbebf160/comey-
fbi-wants-adult-conversation-device-encryption)

[2] [http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/06/us/battling-crime-and-
calo...](http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/06/us/battling-crime-and-calories-at-
fbi-fit-bureau-of-investigation.html)

~~~
tptacek
I _want_ to have a positive opinion of Comey!  I _like_ the idea of people
running our most important/powerful institutions being fundamentally competent
and principled, even when I disagree with them politically.  But I have a hard
time getting past the way he handled the Anthony Weiner email stuff at the end
of the last election.  It seemed unprincipled.  Have you thought much about
that?  Am I missing something? 

~~~
problems
Comey was in a bind.  Internal leaks were happening - if word got out of more
Clinton email investigations before he made it public, he'd have been screwed
and when it leaked, he'd look very partisan. 

If he were to publicly announce it as a major issue, he'd have looked
partisan.  Instead he tried to walk the middle ground by announcing it publicly
and downplaying its significance.  It was a challenging situation and it seems
a fairly reasonable response to me.  About as principled as he could be given
the situation at hand. 

~~~
hackuser
> Comey was in a bind.  Internal leaks were happening - if word got out of more
> Clinton email investigations before he made it public, he'd have been
> screwed and when it leaked, he'd look very partisan. 

Comey's priorities must be far greater than personal fallout: He is
responsible for things so important we don't even question them (or don't want
to): The law, justice, one of the most important institutions in the U.S. (the
FBI), and in this case, arguably the most important institution in the world,
the sanctity of U.S. democracy. 

I don't care if he was in a bind; that is not a concern at all with these
stakes; he shouldn't have the job if he can't handle these situations. 

It may appear to civilians as if it is a bind, but my understanding based on
what a large number of former top officials said is that the FBI and Justice
Department have two unambiguous, long-standing policies on these issues: 1)
Never talk about ongoing investigations, and 2) never say anything that will
influence an election in any way. 

You don't want the head of the FBI making decisions every four years (or 2 -
they could influence every House and Senate race) on what election-related
information they will reveal.  Finally, did Comey reveal every investigation
that might have influenced the election?  No, only one.  What about the one into
Russian interference, for example?  The only violation of those policies, ever
AFAIK, was what Comey did.