During my career in IT the New York Times did a handful of articles involving either the small company I worked for or on some subject area I was heavily involved in. Each time I was amazed at the level of inaccuracies and misunderstandings the in the articles. Given that this happened in a small sample, it could be that these were unusual cases, but I highly doubt it. I have a feeling that this is all too common. Since then I look at mainstream media reporting with lots of skepticism.
"As for The Wall Street Journal’s claim that I’m refusing to let go of control of Bridgewater, I can assure you that that is not true and that if it was true, I’d tell you it was true."<p>He claims their piece is full of factual errors but never addressed a single one in his LinkedIn post, and never provided any kind of evidence or arguments to support any of his other hyperbolic claims of systemic problems in journalism of the WSJ. Then he does something that is common in people who are actively dishonest: the old "Trust me, I'd tell you the truth." statement. Generally people who are honest are eager to present logical arguments backed by facts that can be verified. They don't need to ask for trust because trust isn't required to form independent conclusions based on evidence.<p>His LinkedIn post, after I read it, makes me believe the WSJ article more, not less.
FYI: Here is the WSJ‘s "Fake and Distorted News"
<a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/ray-dalio-is-still-driving-his-160-billion-hedge-fund-machine-11580504150" rel="nofollow">https://www.wsj.com/articles/ray-dalio-is-still-driving-his-...</a>
A lot of comments here suggest that journalists and newspapers are only out to make what sells. That rings false to me in absolute terms. If you read Liars Poker by Michael Lewis you know he was employed at a brokerage and could have stuck around if he was only looking out for money. Does no one else here believe there are journalists who have forsaken the path of making big bucks in other fields to do the right thing?<p>It feels like there is a broad brush painting over this entire discussion. I can't say Ray Dalio makes a convincing case for himself here.
> You are now faced with a choice. You can believe my account of what’s happening or The Wall Street Journal’s.<p>Having now read both accounts, I think I'm going to have to go with the WSJ here.
> The Wall Street Journal and other publications don’t have investigative journalists write complementary articles on people because those articles don’t sell, which is why our country has no heroes<p>This happens all the time. They're called fluff PR pieces. Basically the opposite of what Dalio describes in the rest of his post, but they absolutely exist.
Bridgewater is famous for valuing a culture of almost brutal honesty and fierce internecine warring over ideas. It argues this combination is vital to reaching the deep understanding that is critical to the success of its investments. While Bridgewater has experimented with leadership transitions multiple times, changing directions and reversing course seems consistent and faithful to its internal DNA. Life doesn't always go in neat straight lines. Forcing a simple story line isn't always best.
<i>> As for The Wall Street Journal’s claim that I’m refusing to let go of control of Bridgewater, I can assure you that that is not true and that if it was true, I’d tell you it was true.</i><p>So your counter-argument to an article in a publication that has won 37 Pulitzer prizes for the quality of its news reporting is: “they’re wrong, trust me.”
I like Ray Dalio. I’m a big fan of his book, Principles and his favorite book recommendation, Lessons of History by the Durants.<p>However, his LinkedIn post is irresponsible and appears more to do with discrediting journalism than sticking to and stating the facts. It’s becoming more than apparent that some members of the 1% are increasingly threatened about the role that unfettered journalism and left-leaning politics has in critiquing their unchecked power in this time of historically significant inequality.
Dalio is the creator of the 'All Weather Portfolio', which was popularized in a Tony Robbins book. The portfolio is <i>very</i> heavy on bonds, a controversial idea.<p>Dalio is often outspoken on lots of financial matters. I'll be watching this issue, he's an interesting figure.
I don’t really understand why we should care about a fund or its managers.<p>Unlike product companies, funds don’t contribute anything meaningful to the world. It’s a zero-sum game where someone comes out on top with $19 billion dollars and then goes to Burning Man. That’s acceptable but not admirable.<p>The only difference between Dalio and Madoff is that the former actually has the money. Neither has a legacy.