User talk:Thefourthestate

'I've been through the threads and done a count to substantiate this.'

MarkyMarkD count of posts. Which threads? How? Threads are censored, negative posts removed, not a reliable source. Original numbers on posts in threads changed - is this because when posts are deleted post numbers are reassigned? Ask.

ML resident presenter on money matters on Jeremy Vine Show, BBC Radio 2. Having its resident expert accused by Jon Snow of giving diabolical advice was deeply embarrassing for the BBC. Programme broadcast on 10.17.08 JV invited ML to talk about the Channel 4 News interview. ML said Channel 4 had 'ambushed' him. Said he had received 10,000 emails, '20 called me names'. If he received 10,000 emails then for good or bad he was very heavily involved.

'Lewis' website and media work included picking the UK subsidiaries of Icelandic banks as "best buys" (e.g. Icesave recommended on 2 May 2007[31] and Kaupthing Edge recommended on 12 March 2008 [32]) - as did many other media & best buy tables, on the basis of the high interest rates they were paying.'

Is it fair to quote Lewis' defence that many other media did the same as him? Since the start of 2007 he sent out over 50 million emails tipping affiliate links to Icelandic savings accounts. (Incidentally, ML is paid in a way many journalists would refuse - he is paid commission by the companies he reports on although he says what he writes is not in any way influenced). No other media conducted anything remotely like his email campaign. It's true price comparison website reproduced best buy tables as did some media. Others like Money Week wrote about credit default swaps as indicators that Icelandic banks were high risk and warned not to invest. The Times, Telegraph, Daily Mail, Guardian, FT, Independent, all the quality sundays carried articles from March onwards reporting serious concerns about CDSs, warnings Icelandic banks were high risk. ML's stated editorial policy is to pick products based exclusively on best rates and product terms without any reference to CDSs, liquidity or stability. A search of his website for 'Landsbanki liquidity' returns zero results. He did not report on Icelandic banks in these terms, which was absolutely not the case for most of the rest of the media.

'As one of those who had picked Icelandic owned banks, Lewis was interviewed by Jon Snow on Channel 4 news[36], in a style that many viewers (according to Channel 4 website feedback) considered heavy-handed and unfair. It forced Channel 4 to set up a specific web page to publish the complaints about how Lewis had been treated.'

Isn't the style of interview a diversion from the substance of this story? You make it sound as if ML was the victim, Channel 4 was the villain, and nobody cares about the guy with money in Icesave. If the C4 page was put up in response to a campaign by ML followers then comments will be favorable, not representative i.e spin. Channel 4 'forced' what's your evidence? Aren't you giving too much weight to ML's discomfort given this was one of the most important personal finance stories of the year? This story ended up costing the taxpayer £800 million just to plug the compensation shortfall, not to mention the diplomatic fall out and criticsm of the UK by the United Nations over the use of anti terror legislation for purposes for which it was not designed. Google actually puts Icesave top of the list of financial terms more popular in 2008 than 2007 and the most searched for financial term by Londoners this year is the term ML discounts from his tables - credit default swap. As a public service broadcaster Channel 4 News was ahead of this story. It served the public interest, like Wikipedia. It sent reporters to Iceland as early as March 08 and reported without fear or favour what it found. ML could have used his revenues from Landsbanki and Kaupthing to investigate more thoroughly the products tippped on his website but choose not to. That many of his followers caught up in the savings fiasco turned on Channel 4 makes them appear like a cult - Uses psychological coercion to recruit, indoctrinate and retain members Forms an elitist society Self-appointed leader who is messianic, dogmatic and unaccountable. End justifies the means approach to recruitment and fundraising. Members do not share in wealth!

Channel 4 response to complaints from viewers 'appalled' by Jon Snow's interview - stands by criticism, FSA on role of the internet for savings accounts and information, by focusing primarily on the rate of return, not enough was being done to consider risks. ML defence, not qualified to address complex issues of solvency and stability two issues at the heart of the banking crisis. His website lists best savings rates and product terms. Raises question of moral hazard. See FT 13th October Iceland and the hazards of internet accounts, Willem Buiter LSE, Letters, Guardian, 10.10.08. Also raises questions of MLs conflict of interest. An editorial approach sets out all the known issues. As the most high profile personal finance journalist in the UK, who signs himself a 'TV Money Saving guru', concerns about the stability of Iceland's banking sector would have been known to ML. On Channel 4 said could not include this in his emails as would have caused banks to fail earlier. ML on record as critical of Robert Peston on NR. By restricting his editorial to rates and product terms, editing out known issues of liquidity, is this what a journalist does? Or is there a conflict of interest between his wish that his website makes him a billionaire and what a journalist would report? Interestingly, during the JV programme on 10.17.08 a caller rang in and asked about Irish savings accounts. ML said the 'important question in evaluating risk is can the Irish government pay out?'

Shropshire Star reference. ML works for the Shropshire Star. How credible is Iceland's claim that the UK government was responsible for problems in the Icelandic banking system, as reported by the Star?

== Martin Lewis (personal finance journalist, there's a big difference, financial journalists write the city pages of newspapers for example and have much stricter statutory rules than personal finance journalists like Martin Lewis who write consumer stories about money. If most of his earnings come from his website he is perhaps more accurately described as a publisher Thefourthestate (talk) 17:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC)==

This page reads rather as if you are talking to yourself, not helped by the lack of signatures and the fact that all the edits are by yourself!

Do you think it's time to add something about how much Martin Lewis' company makes? fourthestate —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thefourthestate (talk • contribs) 22:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I do. A friend was talking to me about precisely this, and pointed out that apparently it says on MSE somewhere that ML is a millionaire. I'm sure it is possible to provide citations that indicate how much money ML makes out of MSE, and to compare it to his public stance that the affiliate links are there merely to prevent a need for advertising.

Why not start something off and I'll edit if necessary? MarkyMarkD (talk) 22:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello Mark, Will do, I've avoided editing Martin Lewis'page and put my thoughts here on what I thought was my talk page. Just looked up UTC and I still don't know what it means. the fourthestate 17th feb

Know how to sign things nowThefourthestate (talk) 17:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Martin Lewis' CV has been updated. Is reference to moneysupermarket the best way to record how much his website is worth? I thought it was confusing. Why not link to this article which would suggest the site is worth about £250 million today (which fits with the valuation of moneysupermarket). http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2005/dec/17/moneysupplement3 (sorry if this is the wrong way to suggest a link). The reference to affiliates may also benefit from an edit. 'The website carries no advertisements' Questionable. The only revenue it has is from advertising, it's just that Martin Lewis claims affiliated links are not adverts. If you look at the affiliate programmes he uses to monetise the site - he mentions Tradedoubler, OMG and SmartQuotes - all the programmes offer 'adverts' to publishers. http://www.smart-quotes.com/ http://www.omguk.com/ The fact is, the companies using affliate networks are paying for ..... adverts. On cashback, the most recent edit says 'Lewis has also caused disquiet in Affiliate Martketing Circles for promoting cashback sites [10] where the consumer gets the money for affiliate payments for themselves. This is likely to have had a substantial impact on the revenue his own site makes too.' He does promote cashback but not when it impacts on his revenue. Look at the affiliate link he has for Alliance & Leicester current account, scroll down on this page http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/banking/compare-best-bank-accounts. The link goes via moneysupermarket so the two sites are splitting the £50 commission which A&L pays for a referral. He is not promoting cashback by including a link to Quidco which would give the consumer the £50 commission. http://www.quidco.com/alliance-leicester-current-accounts/ Over to you Thefourthestate (talk) 21:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that this wording covers what you are trying to say. OK, I'm accepting MSE's "party line" of not carrying advertisements but then pointing out that this is a fallacy because the website is entirely funded by click through links.  I think that it would be labouring the point to say "The website claims not to carry advertisements, but contains hundreds of affiliate links which are a more disguised form of advertising".  QUOTE:"The website carries no advertisements, but rather affiliate links to other websites and thereby receives commission for purchases made and/or clicks through." MarkyMarkD (talk) 20:42, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Martin Lewis (financial journalist)
Updated the sections related to energy price fixing - thanks for your thoughts on this. The inclusion of the uSwitch "research" is not particularly relevant or helpful - it is easy to pick individual capped rate deals which were good, but equally easy to generalise that predicting definite price rises in December (as ML did in July) was not accurate and led many people to end up on poor capped rates. MarkyMarkD (talk) 17:42, 13 September 2009 (UTC)