Barack was right about the oil speculators

[andym]

Study links oil prices to investor speculation

WASHINGTON - Speculation by large investors — and not supply and demand for oil — were a primary reason for the surge in oil prices during the first half of the year and the more recent price declines, an independent study concluded Wednesday.

The report by Masters Capital Management said investors poured $60 billion into oil futures markets during the first five months of the year as oil prices soared from $95 a barrel in January to $145 a barrel by July....

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080910/ap_on_go_co/oil_speculation

This should be the issue of the day. Barack has proposed tighter regulations on speculators.

[andym]

1. How come stories like these don't seem to by on the front pages

How come this story doesn't seem to by on the front pages of the news organizations' websites?

[eshfemme]

2. Because doing stories like these would force them to get off their asses and actually do their jobs

They'd rather do stories that are easily conveyed in 30 seconds even if they're stupid instead of stuff that shines a bright fucking spotlight on areas that impact all of us. The fourth estate is not the fourth estate-- it's a fucking parasite leeching off of the government teat.

[Beaverhausen]

3. no sex or ugly name calling

sad but true.

[BeFree]

4. Well then

Those damn perverted speculators that wear their mothers' underwear while trading oil futures while lounging in their prostitutes dens are gonna get shit smeared by their homosexual girlfriends and have their penii cut off with crude knives made of stone while they dream of masturbating in front of their fathers.

[anigbrowl]

8. Because it's not all that newsowrthy

It's just an update to news from earlier this summer. I do think it's important (in fact, I have downloaded the report already) because I am working on a media project about this subject. But there's no real story here, it's just Masters putting out an update to his view of the oil market situation that he's been arguing since early summer.

I think he's right, but there is no real novelty here (if you cared, you already knew who Masters was) and also it's just the opinion of one market guy (as opposed to a finding by a congressional committee or the DoE or something). And finally, it would be in the business news section and not the front page because most people just don't know or care about the technicalities of how markets work.

[andym]

9. Newsworthy should not just be about novelty (new) but about "worthy"

Because this is an update of possible great significance to the American public, you might think it would re-enter the news in a prominent way. Although it is about commodities trading, the effects are important to everyone using fuel in the United States (and abroad) that it should not be buried in the business section. Michael Master's recommendations to Congress in June should be heeded.

I think many people would be very interested to know that they had to spend more of their hard-earned cash on gasoline, because of speculators and inadequate federal regulations. Perhaps giving more prominence to the updated story might engender the kind of reaction necessary to light a news fire. After all the MSM loves to rehash old stories if they think they are controversial. And from what you wrote, this story has the earmarks of controversy.

[anigbrowl]

10. You're missing the point

a) Masters is not presenting any new information over what he has already presented
b) although I think he's right, he does not carry any special water in the commodity markets

Please note that I agree with Masters. I've been researching this issue for a few months, partly because of him. But as a former journalist I can tell that this doesn't even come near to being front page news. If you read his analysis, it's interesting but it doesn't form a complete story; rather it outlines some knowledge gaps in the commodities markets and (cleverly) derives some likely financial implications by reverse analysis of the numbers involved. It's relevant and quotable in articles on the subject (there was one in Time a week or two ago), but doesn't really stand up on its own as a story because what he's offering is an analysis rather than first-hand information about an event.

[Gold Metal Flake]

5. R#4. Just need one more.

[BumRushDaShow]

6. The Washington Post had an article about this on 8/21/08

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/20/AR2008082003898.html

[andym]

7. Yikes

I didn't hear it then. Did it get plenty of coverage outside of the Post?