For those (like me) who are puzzled by some of the assertions made in this article -- I suspect that it's what journalists refer to as a "beat sweetener"[1]. R

For those (like me) who are puzzled by some of the assertions made in this article -- I suspect that it's what journalists refer to as a "beat sweetener"[1]. Reporters have particular sectors, companies, etc. they're assigned to cover; these are referred to as their beat. To get stories, a journalist has to develop sources within those sectors/companies/etc. -- people "in the know" who are willing to share information with them. Developing sources is a hard thing to do, as people tend not to talk to reporters unless they've got an axe to grind, which biases their information and makes it less useful to you. One way to get potential sources to open up to you is to butter them up in advance with some flattering coverage. Once you're fixed in their memory as the guy/gal who wrote that great story about them, they're less likely to see you as an adversary. So it's not uncommon, when a new executive takes over somewhere, to see a glowing profile of them appear -- a profile that "explains" how all the problems the place the executive just took over at are the fault of their departed predecessor, who was an idiot whose momma dressed him funny, and how the new executive's bold, daring Vision for the Future™ will solve them all at a stroke. I have no hard evidence whether that's the actual thought process that led to this puzzling article, of course. It just really, really reads that way. [1] See https://www.thenation.com/article/washingtons-beat-sweetener-media-culture/ https://www.thenation.com/article/washingtons-beat-sweetener..., https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2009/04/a-beat-sweetener-sampler.html https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2009/04/a-beat-sweetener...