"It is also a big chunk of what corporate chief executive officers ... do". This is a small example of how most of Mr. Levine's writing is reductive to the point of being crude.

Executives are allowed to advocate for their companies. But only with information that has already been publicly disclosed. Don't believe me? How did the SEC feel about Elon Musk tweeting non-public information about his public company?

Mr. Levine is correct that this action by short sellers is legal. But that part of his analogy is wrong. He could have ended the analogy with "That's like half of financial television." However he chose to add on a point that is not applicable to the situation.

For a long time I enjoyed Mr. Levine's writings. Until I started to read his opinions on topics in which I have domain knowledge. At which point I realized his writing lack nuance and offers analogies that feel cut & dry but are anything but.

I realize this is true of many opinion writers. But Mr. Levine enjoys a great deal of notoriety for opinions that lack sophistication & rigor.