Fun thing: I went on twitter to tell him his editor missed fact checking on that completely. Turns out the author of the piece is "Founding editor of Business Insider U.K.".
Update: He has replied and said he would look into it and correct it. Being that he's aware of the discussion here, i suspect other things might get corrected too. :)
Assuming the Business Insider summary is correct (which is an assumption, yes), the book isn't trying to imply it, the book is outright claiming it. It is possible that either the book or the Business Insider article is mistaken -- gets facts wrong, is misleading, whatever. That's not "out of context" so much as it is "being wrong," though.
Business Insider also gets away with phrasing the story in a more authoritative tone. The original in WSJ was littered with phrases like according to several people familiar with the matter.
This is a bit nit-picky, but I find it distracting when an article leads with a statement that strikes me as grossly inaccurate.
Because if the rest of the article hinges on the accuracy of that opening statement, I'm likely to regret having spent time reading the article.
Clarification: The reason I'm skeptical of that particular opening statement is AFAIK U.S. corporations can have assets, liabilities, etc. that are very different than simply the sum of their employees. For example, I would gladly accept the parts of Apple that aren't employees: its bank accounts, patent portfolio, etc.
-> CEBR[0] publishes World Economic League Table and predictions
So what you're saying is that this UK company (CEBR) that periodically updates its economic league table[1] based on data it collects and collates should stop doing so and go out of business. Or are you saying that Bloomberg, a company that focuses on financial terminals and journalism, should stop reporting financial information like this?
I wanted to add a snarky, "Truly groundbreaking comment" but I managed to stop myself.
edit: added link to league table report, can be yours for just £195
[0]Centre for Economics & Business Research "leading economic forecasts & analysis" https://cebr.com/
The article is an attack on Peter Thiel, not SVB. Also seems thin on facts, and just "SVB is getting bailed out, and hence some rich guy stays rich". Given that both the Fed and the Bank of England have decades-old laws protecting the financial system long before (tech) billionaires, this article seems even more ridiculous.
> Today, the magazine is a print–digital hybrid. According to its present self-description, it has a liberal and progressive political position.[3] Jason Cowley, the magazine's editor, has described the New Statesman as a publication "of the left, for the left"[4] but also as "a political and literary magazine" with "sceptical" politics.
> "My mistake was to write and then submit it here, NOT KNOWING NOR EXPECTING that it would get so quickly picked up on the front page.
> "Quicker than I realized, I was confronted with the mistake I made, without having time to re-examine the article again."
I hate to say this, but the title drew a lot of attention because of it being inaccurate. eg I clicked the link because my thought was "wow - that can't be true. I wonder where all these data centres are and how big they are". I'd guess many others did the same - which is why someone accused the article as linkbait.
I think this is one of those occasions that need to be chalked down as "experience". And a good reminder to all of us to proof read the stuff we post online. :)
Update: He has replied and said he would look into it and correct it. Being that he's aware of the discussion here, i suspect other things might get corrected too. :)
https://twitter.com/Jim_Edwards/status/529588985690337280
reply