Surprise! Barron's (and their writer Ben Levisohn) Dislike Devon Deal
Barron''s Ben Levisohn snarkily relayed Raymond James' enthusiasm by saying that most analysts feel Devon got a good price and implying that Raymond James ("Surprise!") showed its usual stubborn bias in favor of LINN Energy). I really wonder why Barron's continues to have an agenda against the company.
I don't want to be an apologist for Levisohn, but he never really said "most analysts." He simply said "analysts" which, to me, implies all analysts. I wonder how many analysts he read to justify that implication. Two? Three? Were he a good journalist he'd have simply reported "some analysts" or given the minuscule number he actually knows of. Furthermore, it's poor reporting to misquote him, especially when accusing him of bias. (Actually, you accused Barron's when it was an individual columnist speaking. The major part of the short article was, after all, positive about Linn and the deal. Bias does cut both ways.)
You're splitting hairs, ronharv. By your own admission, you believe he implied "all analysts." So why challenge my phrase "most analysts"? (Agreed: I should have said he *implied* rather than *said* that most analysts thought Devon got the better deal.) As for accusing Barron's when it was an individual columnist speaking, Barron's *is* its writers, and he was speaking as a Barron's representative rather than for himself. As for your statement "the major part of the short article was, after all, positive about Linn and the deal" -- as coochy stated, one could hardly miss his snide/snarky tone. IMO, if Ben *really* had negative information from other analysts regarding the deal, he would have quoted them. As it was, all he could do was report the only information available (i.e., Raymond James' positive remarks) and *imply* that Raymond James' opinion was contrary to general opinion. OTOH, just as Barron's is always negative re Linn, so is Motley Fool always positive. I just happen to believe the latter is closer to the truth than the former (or I would not have invested heavily in this company).