Zero Hedge's Bloomberg Podcast: Why Did Bloomberg Delete It?

I intended to write this post about high frequency trading. The idea was to link to a very enlightening podcast that aired Friday on “Taking Stock” with Pimm Fox on Bloomberg Radio. Tyler Durden of Zero Hedge was on the program talking to Pimm about what High Frequency Trading is, who the participants are and why it is or why it is not a good thing. I found Durden, who spoke with a slight accent, to be very knowledgeable about the topic and fairly even-handed in his analysis (he is anonymous and uses a pseudonym from the cult film Fight Club, so I do not know his true identity. I reckon he is foreign-born based on his speaking voice).

But the podcast and any mention of Durden disappeared from Bloomberg’s site. Here is my iTunes list of podcasts with Durden sandwiched between a segment with John Taylor, a professor at Stanford, and a report on Jack in the Box.

Here is a list of the podcasts on Bloomberg the last time I checked right before I wrote this post.

The Durden podcast is missing. And Durden is nowhere to be found on Bloomberg’s site even though he did a show with Pimm Fox just Friday.

Why is that?

Here’s what I think. Tyler Durden became radioactive overnight due to a post in the NY Post and Bloomberg scrubbed him off their site. Here’s a blurb from that article.

A 30-year-old New Yorker who was barred from the securities industry last year may be behind an increasingly popular financial blog known as Zerohedge.com, which is catching flack for its obsession with anonymity.

Daniel Ivandjiiski, whose most recently listed address is on the Upper East Side, was barred last September by the financial industry’s self regulatory authority, FINRA, for insider trading.

Ivandjiiski is also suspected of being one of the founders of controversial financial blog Zerohedge.com, sources tell The Post.

So, can you see why Bloomberg decided to scrub him? I reckon Bloomberg are now wondering whether Tyler Durden is a good source of information and have decided to treat him like a pariah until his true identity (and those with whom he is affiliated) is well-established.

This issue has unleashed a debate in the blogosphere about anonymous blogging and the relationship between established mainstream media sources like Bloomberg and bloggers like Durden. Both Felix Salmon and Yves Smith have picked up on this story. Read their posts. To date, Dennis Kneale, a host on CNBC, has been the one most vociferous about econobloggers and their credibility or lack thereof. He has made it known on a number of occasions that he sees Zero Hedge and Durden in a negative light.

My personal view is this: If one is going to write a blog that points fingers and names names, to the degree one can, one should be as transparent as possible about one’s identity and reveal all relevant information publicly. To my mind, this enhances credibility.

Zero Hedge is a site replete with copious information on finance and the economy and is often a necessary voice of scepticism in the blogosphere that keeps the mainstream media honest. We need outlets like that. And Tyler was on Bloomberg Radio in the first place because he has something to say that is different, interesting and adds value. However, the hyperbole, tone, anonymity and confusion as to which writer is using which pseudonym at Zero Hedge has long become a liability which reduces the credibility of the site.

My preference would be to see Tyler Durden come out and reveal his identity and the identity of those with whom he works or indicate on some basic level why he cannot do so. If not, instituting a one blogger/one pseudonym policy would be advisable. And tone it down, please. As to whether one can glean important information from sites whose authors remain anonymous and whose agenda is unknown, it is a complicated issue. I tend to think it is the message that is important and not the messenger. But the message in finance is often complicated and many can become confused as to who is real deal and who is a charlatan.

As things stand now, Durden and Zero Hedge are losing credibility – so much so that it does seem they have been scrubbed off of Bloomberg’s website and podcasts. This is a loss for all of us who follow Zero Hedge, especially for those of us who write in the financial blogosphere. And that’s also why this post is not about high frequency trading.

Update 11:00PM: A commenter on naked capitalism found the link to the Bloomberg podcast with Pimm Fox and Tyler Durden. I am posting it here for as long as it remains live.

Comments

[Dialectical...:]

The Federalist Papers were written by multiple people all using the pseudonym "Publius" (among the authors were Alexander Hamilton and James Madison for those who need to a high school history refresher). The reason the multiple authors used the same fictitious name was to give focus to the message with the clarity that anonymity affords. In other words, there was the intention that the merits of the case for the Constitution would best be served without the distraction of who wrote it. You could only buy the argument if you bought it, not because so-and-so was saying it.

I have no problem with multiple bloggers all using the Tyler Durden name as long as the information they report is factual and verifiable. It is their right to interpret this info as they see fit and to make as compelling a case as they can.

Zero Hedge has been an amazing resource for a lot of people and I disagree that it matters who is writing it. It could be Warren Buffett and Ben Bernanke for all I care (actually that would be really funny for obvious reasons).

Aug 23 02:09 AM

[Edward Harr...:]

Dialectical Materialist, I agree with most of what you said, so I have to clarify a little here.

I don't like the post title header in the least. The original was "The high frequency trading post I did not write"
www.creditwritedowns.c...

I find it kind of annoying that Seeking Alpha changed the title in a way that distorts the essence of my message. I may have to ask them to fix this.

The essence of what I am saying (much of which are in the comments at the original post) is this:

1. Bloomberg has been a reliable source of scepticism and investigative journalism. But now they are purging people from their site and podcasts. I tend to think this was deliberate and it angers me.

2. The reason they did purge Tyler has to do with their desire to protect their own reputation. I can imagine someone at Bloomberg running around after they NY Post story broke trying to figure out if the fact that they just gave prominent airtime to someone barred from the securities industry as a source a day before he was outed was a liability. They seem to have reached the conclusion it was.

3. But, I don't think they should have purged him. He had something valuable to say. That's why he was on the program. And I find it unethical to alter data in order to hide something. In February, I caught the telegraph doing the same thing in regards to toxic assets in Europe:
www.creditwritedowns.c...

This is not above board journalism in the least.

4. But, this does bring up the issue about reliable sources of information on the Internet and anonymity. In the main, it is the message, not the messenger, one should be listening too. Just because Ben Bernanke says something and he has high social status, doesn't mean it's true. And just because someone has an unfortunate past doesn't mean, he doesn't have something of value to say.

5. However, in the real world, people conflate social status and reliability. This is why Bloomberg is concerned about their reputation. As a result, one has to always be circumspect about discerning facts from innuendo and rumour - especially if you are challenging the status quo! Zero Hedge is not. I happen to think they do some very good stuff. But, too often the facts are wrong, the tone is shrill or the implication is conspiratorial. I don't really like that sort of thing, honestly. And, it means I trust the source less.

6. Since I actually like Zero Hedge (it is on my blogroll and I have and will continue to link out to it), I would like to see it succeed. Who knows, it might become a financial sector Huffington Post. But, it is not going to succeed using its present set of journalistic rules. They do need to have a one writer/one persona rule and I would love Durden to come out and say "here I am, this is who I am. so can we get back to the real story, our crumbling crony-capitalism ridden financial system."

By the way, listen to the podcast as well.

Aug 23 08:39 AM

[notsosmart:]

its all turning to nonsense.just think for yourself to the best of your ability as no one can be trusted about anything.can an insider trading scoundrel still tell the truth about others? possible.who knows? the world of the handshake is long gone.it wont return.

Aug 23 12:54 PM

[Dialectical...:]

I did listen, and the only annoying thing was that every time it got interesting, there was a break. I could have listened to an hour long program. This is stuff that, as a small time retail investor whose only been doing this for five years, is very new to me. The more I learn, the more I see how much more to learn there is. And succinct explanations of these reasonably complex processes are hard to come by.

These are interesting times to be an amateur investor, and the things I have been reading on ZH and SA are just incredible. I often read something so compelling I am forced to share it with others (to the annoyance of my friends). Thanks for the link to the podcast and for all your other great work.

On Aug 23 08:39 AM Edward Harrison wrote:

> Dialectical Materialist, I agree with most of what you said, so I
> have to clarify a little here.
[...]
>
> By the way, listen to the podcast as well.

Aug 23 01:07 PM

[Old Trader:]

This is, without a doubt, a thorny issue, and frankly, I can see both sides of the argument. I suppose that, at the end of the day, its up to ZH to decide how much they wish to disclose about the principals involved, knowing that "they" might well be hurting their cause by allowing doubt to linger/fester in the minds of some of their audience.

Aug 23 01:23 PM

[User 458878:]

Mr. Harrison, I don't know if more censorship gremlins are at work, but where you say there shuld be alink to the video, there is a box with a red X.

Aug 23 02:31 PM

[kmi:]

I am in the camp the same as the first poster, if the message has value the source should not need to reveal itself.

If the message has no value it will quickly and readily be debunked.

Anonymity allows the source to avoid personal attacks, and comments about reputation etc.

Why is it so hard for the "traditional" media to deal with bloggers? If it is true that bloggers make up bogus info how hard could it possibly be to do some fact checking and debunk it?

The "traditional" media is in fact an outlet for a lot of misinformation in its own right, and who polices them?

Aug 23 06:05 PM

[Edward Harr...:]

I hope not. Try this direct link to the mp3 file.
media.bloomberg.com/bb...

Cheers.
Edward


On Aug 23 02:31 PM User 458878 wrote:

> Mr. Harrison, I don't know if more censorship gremlins are at work,
> but where you say there shuld be alink to the video, there is a box
> with a red X.

Aug 23 07:56 PM

[Steven Hansen:]

Edward, great debate you initiated.

i had been under the impression that Tyler was four different people. i now realize "he / she / it" is probably many more. but it does not matter to me.

1) there is no one who can provide 100% accurate information all the time. there are errors in perception, bias, omission, data, and logic.

2) the more you write, the more errors occur.

3) ya gotta evaluate and think through all the information you are receiving.

whether tyler is a serial killer or space cadet, he entertains and informs.

Aug 23 08:33 PM

[Michael Clark:]

A voice of wisdom.


On Aug 23 08:33 PM Steven Hansen wrote:

> Edward, great debate you initiated.
>
> i had been under the impression that Tyler was four different people.
> i now realize "he / she / it" is probably many more. but it does
> not matter to me.
>
> 1) there is no one who can provide 100% accurate information all
> the time. there are errors in perception, bias, omission, data,
> and logic.
>
> 2) the more you write, the more errors occur.
>
> 3) ya gotta evaluate and think through all the information you are
> receiving.
>
> whether tyler is a serial killer or space cadet, he entertains and
> informs.

Aug 24 01:53 AM

[Michael Clark:]

Why did Bloomberg scrub...?

Check the phone records of Goldman Sachs. Character assassination is one of the first classes they teach in the Harvard MBA program. And, of course, Goldman recruits only those who got an A+ in that class.

Let's have MORE character assassination. Let's have more idealization of the 'Masters of the Universe' business cult. We want things the way they used to be. Murder anyone?

What is Elliot Spitzer's address again?

Aug 24 01:56 AM

[Michael Clark:]

Very interesting article, Edward. An original observation -- and more refreshing that just rehashing someone else's news.

Aug 24 01:59 AM

[H. T. Love:]

On Aug 23 06:05 PM kmi wrote:

><snip>

> Why is it so hard for the "traditional" media to deal with bloggers?
><snip>

My *guess* is that since the "fourth estate", a.k.a. the mainstream media, is held in such a high state of dis-repute now, the bloggers represent a very real threat to what remains of the MSM's credibility.

As with everything else political, attack, attack, attack.

We raise our own status by lowering the status of others is an old ploy.

HardToLove

Aug 24 09:05 AM

[Vikram Saxena:]

I read somewhere that the total profit from the insider trading for which Daniel Ivandjiiski was debarred by FINRA was around $800-$900. Yes, you read it right. He was debarred for an amount that was less than a thousand dollars. There are people on Wall Street who spend that much on a single meal.

ZeroHedge is taking on the titans of the financial industry and I can completely understand their need for anonymity. However, ZH should not only ensure that their claims are properly substantiated (they typically are), but also that the conclusions reached do not need a stretch of imagination (which they often do).

Though I read ZeroHedge to get a better picture, you can not trade based on what they write.

Aug 24 09:08 PM

[Maxe Paul:]

I fully agree with you, he needs to come out and reveal if he is the person who was charged with insider trading.

At this point we all know GS speak shit and are as shifty as a pack of used car salesmen, but at least we all know where we stand!

Aug 25 10:36 AM

[Maxe Paul:]

BTW, where is Tyler ATM?

I think he needs to show up first so we can get the real story?

Funny time to go all quiet!

Aug 26 08:49 AM

[msgtb:]

Do we have free speech in America anymore? Are our rights being taken?

The good news is that the military will side with the citizens and not the government if this comes to blows.

Msgtb

Sep 22 12:44 PM

[TeresaE:]

Late to the game and something we all should be aware of.

Congress and the House both have bills pending that will define protected anonymity in reporting.

Basically, unless you are paid by the same media that only does the government & advertisers bidding, you have ZERO protection and can be forced to disclose your sources.

I know many will not understand how important a turning point this is, but this is the final nail in the coffin of freedom.

Once the government determines not just who is a "journalist," but WHICH companies can be "journalists" the end in near.

How can we get fair and unbiased reporting when only scrubbed and cleaned for mass consumption corporations will be allowed to "report" the news.

The First Amendment (and most others) is being eradicated under our very noses. We are condoning and paying for the demise of the law that made us the greatest country on earth.

And we the people, don't care.

Oct 01 09:34 AM