Pure whataboutism, come on. Yes, other things deserve investigation, but so does this. And there's plenty of right-wing media — in fact I'd argue too much such that there's a lack of balance in US media.

> Be specific. Which article and which citation? Otherwise this is insinuation or even slander

I’m literally calling out a liar. Not sure how you missed that.

But sure. This is the article [1]. Excerpt from my e-mail to the author:

“I came across your post through Dealbook today. In your article you mention that it is ‘argued that [Sarbanes-Oxley] would hurt initial public offerings, which it didn’t.’ You link through to a working paper on the SSRN at ‘didn't’. From the paper linked to:

‘Although the 2002 Sarbanes-Oxley Act and the 2003 Global Settlement have reduced the attractiveness of being public for small companies, we argue that the more fundamental problem is the increased inability of small companies to become and remain profitable.’

The paper, in whole, posits that structural changes in the attractiveness of exit by acquisition versus IPO are the salient factor behind a secular decrease in IPO activity…Furthermore, the paper directly concedes (see quote above) that SOX negatively impacted IPO activity. This is not how you represented it in your article.”

Eisinger’s response: “Thanks, [JumpCrisscross], for your thoughts.”

> what you've done here is defame every member of the ProPublica staff, past and present (because you don't name a particular writer or article)

I’m calling Jesse Eisinger unreliable. Since he’s a founder in good standing at Pro Publica, I’m calling out the publication. Honest journalists don’t get free passes for negligent or crooked bosses.

Pro Publica is worth reading. It is not authoritative—it does not hold itself up to journalistic standards, a rot which starts at the top.

(I’ve used the above exchange to block Pro Publica from influencing lawmaking on Cheyenne, Albany, Sacramento and D.C. I would want anything they say independently corroborated before being acted on.)

[1] https://www.propublica.org/article/the-sox-win-how-financial...

I'm just speculating here, but it could be that he doesn't want to risk doxing himself. If he emailed them from his personal email address, which contains his real name, the journalist could out him.

> Was it something he could have reasonably disagreed with?

No. He cited a paper showing the opposite effect from what he claimed it to be.

So what outlet would choose to not cover this? One that doesn't care?

I think you misunderstand the whole concept of journalism. They report, you interpret. Left wing or right wing might matter in what words they choose, to influence your perception.

Not reporting something like this is not bias, that's just not caring.

Given that the current president is right wing, wouldn't the left have a vested interest in talking about self-dealing in the state?

Regardless, we are on a news aggregator here. Whatever selection bias this source has should be counteracted by hn drawing from many sources. At least on the source level. HN is going to of course be biased towards stories hn finds interesting.

It's ~700 for inspections and ~100 for other things. Which I'm not sure why would anyone discount as not important. Especially since they may be avoiding more fines due to missing inspections.

>If the financial Harm is minimal that implies that in your worldview it shouldn't be punished?

Yes. If I step on a patch of grass technically that may damage the grass, but I don't think such an action should be punished since the amount of damage is very small.

>You must view jails and prisons as a terrible outcome, since you're essentially paying money to punish someone.

No, I view it as a positive outcome as it removes malicous actors from the system.

I would assume treating to the highest standard would mean they remove things such as chemicals that cause chemical burns from the water which would mean it doesn't reach the natural waterways.