Re: Financial topics
Posted: Wed Jul 15, 2015 11:11 am
and you want to believe what?
From a formally respectable source?
WSJ Notes "Chances That China's Data Is Real Is Very Low" Then Promptly Scrubs It
"The chances that that data is real is very low," said Alicia Garcia Herrero, Natixis's chief economist for the Asia-Pacific region. "Would you publish GDP data that looks south at this point in time? I don't think so."
Such brutal honesty, even if in paraphrase. And yet, did someone make an error allowing this much truthiness to sneak through strict editorial efforts? We ask because when we look at the final draft of the WSJ report now titled "China Stocks Tumble as Investors Doubt Beijing’s Help", and updated at 5:14am, we find....
Nothing.
The entire quote by Natixis' Herrero has been completely scrubbed, as is both the observation that "the chances that the data is real is very low" and the rhetorical question if one would:"publish GDP data that looks south at this point in time? I don't think so."
Apparently, if one is the WSJ, one would also not publish a quote stating just that."
and from the comments section -----
JustObserving
The free and fair media of the West doing their jobs to the best of their ability and ethics.
If the WSJ censors itself on China, what do you think it does about the land of the free?
From a formally respectable source?
WSJ Notes "Chances That China's Data Is Real Is Very Low" Then Promptly Scrubs It
"The chances that that data is real is very low," said Alicia Garcia Herrero, Natixis's chief economist for the Asia-Pacific region. "Would you publish GDP data that looks south at this point in time? I don't think so."
Such brutal honesty, even if in paraphrase. And yet, did someone make an error allowing this much truthiness to sneak through strict editorial efforts? We ask because when we look at the final draft of the WSJ report now titled "China Stocks Tumble as Investors Doubt Beijing’s Help", and updated at 5:14am, we find....
Nothing.
The entire quote by Natixis' Herrero has been completely scrubbed, as is both the observation that "the chances that the data is real is very low" and the rhetorical question if one would:"publish GDP data that looks south at this point in time? I don't think so."
Apparently, if one is the WSJ, one would also not publish a quote stating just that."
and from the comments section -----
JustObserving
The free and fair media of the West doing their jobs to the best of their ability and ethics.
If the WSJ censors itself on China, what do you think it does about the land of the free?