Two financial journalists got into a Twitter war on Thursday over the newsworthiness of Mitt Romney-related financial documents released by Gawker.

Just an hour and a half after the site published hundreds of pages of leaked documents tied to the Republican presidential candidate, Fortune senior editor Dan Primack dismissed the documents as "worthless," arguing that many of the revelations had been previously disclosed.

Heidi Moore, the New York bureau chief for Marketplace, shot back on Twitter:


Heidi N. Moore
I love you , as you know, but this is so misguided I don't know where to start.

Check out the Twitter exchange that followed:


danprimack
Let's start with: Your biggest error is...


Heidi N. Moore
.@danprimack Okay. Your biggest error is one of news judgment. It's our job as journalists to identify matters of interest. This is one.


Heidi N. Moore
Also, "people can find these documents everywhere" is not a good crit, because as journalists WE do that work. Also, it's hard.


danprimack
The existence of fund docs isn't news. What's in them could be news except, in this case, it isn't


Heidi N. Moore
Further to the previous! The structure of these partnerships is interesting because they illuminate a part of PE ppl don't see.


danprimack
Is there anything in here that people, were they interested, couldn't find via a google search of PE fund structures?


Heidi N. Moore
READERS don't DO google searches of PE fund structures. That's our job. To tell readers it exists and why it matters (or not).


Heidi N. Moore
And lastly (for now) Romney is running for President on issues of financial management. His tax arrangements thus matter.


Heidi N. Moore
It would be as if I said, "people can easily read 10-ks of every major bank." They won't. They shouldn't. That's OUR job.


danprimack
agreed on latter point, although Mitt's specific tax arrangements aren't in here.


danprimack
And I've written ad nausea about PE fund structures vis-a-vis Romney and Bain. These docs didn't provide new info.


danprimack
Ok, so I could have posted docs (not really, mine had watermarks) and then told readers that there was nothing interesting to see


Heidi N. Moore
so, while I respect that you may have not been surprised by the docs, anyone and everyone else doesn't have that context. Share.


Heidi N. Moore
I don't buy the "new info" thing. It is valuable to contextualize these docs. People wanted this info. It's interesting.


Heidi N. Moore
Also, that is a real story. "I saw these documents. They're not as crazy as you may think. I know this stuff. Here's why."


Heidi N. Moore
Anyway, that's my POV. It is part of a financial journalist's job to seek transparency and explanation. So, team Gawker. etc.



Heidi N. Moore
anyway, I'd still be interested in YOUR informed take on why these docs don't matter. Hope you're writing that.



Heidi N. Moore
that's a good start, but that's mostly anti-Gawker snark. Substance of the docs is your bailiwick. LP arrangements, etc.

Even other finance reporters joined the fray:


Who do you think won the debate? Let us know in the comments!

Earlier on HuffPost: