I don't think the original article was particularly pro-Wall Street. It was saying that Wall Street was changing, that it would shrink and there would be less m

I don't think the original article was particularly pro-Wall Street. It was saying that Wall Street was changing, that it would shrink and there would be less money around. It attributed most of this to the Dodd-Frank act _but_ it didn't say that this was entirely a bad thing, it didn't state that it would be the end of the United States. If anything I would say the original article was vaguely anti-Wall Street, the quotes chosen for the article portray the bankers as being rich, conceited and of dubious value to society. My reading of the rolling stone article conveyed fewer facts and a significantly greater proportion of opinion.