- Image via CrunchBase
The New York Times today carried an a article about government moves to impose restrictions on the practice of “flash trading,” in which deep-pocketed and tech-savvy investment firms deploy millions of dollars of computing power to gain what some say is an unfair advantage in the financial markets.
As interesting as this phenomenon is, what really caught my eye is the reporting. According to the article, “All of the traders spoke on the condition of anonymity, because they did not see any personal gain in speaking publicly.”
Except for people seeking to sway public opinion or would-be experts building their brands, why should anyone ever speak to a journalist on the record? Yet so many do.
Astute observation. Reminds me of what Joan Didion wrote in her intro to Slouching Towards Bethlehem: “…people tend to forget that my presence runs counter to their best interests. And it always does. That is the one last thing to remember: writers are always willing to sell someone out.”
The funniest aspect of the NYT anonymity explanation: the sources wouldn’t speak out because they didn’t see “any personal gain,” as if “professional gain” might have swayed them to go on the record.
So true. Thanks for your comment, Kevin.