https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/authors/ARbTQlRLRjE/matthe...
Would be much more interesting if he had personally experienced or orchestrated what he discusses. Otherwise you may as well just listen to anyone.
EDIT: As some people are responding and confused about how journalism works: E.g. he wrote about Elon Musk today yet is just getting his information from other articles or Twitter as I doubt he is speaking with Elon Musk or involved in the deal. At that point it's just hearsay.
You just literally described a journalist's job. Congrats?
Like if he had worked at Goldman-Sachs and had direct experience with how large financial institutions function or something?
Now maybe you can qualm about where he gets his information and how reputable it is, but I think your standard for journalism differs from most.
He has been offering analysis and commentary on the process since the beginning, floating theories for various parties’ positions and debunking silly ideas that were being taken seriously at the time.
Writing about your first hand accounts is not journalism. If for no other reason than it would be inherently biased. We have a term for stories from a person's life written by the person: autobiographies.
To be clear, the criticism of Levine from the GP is total bunk, but this definition is weird.