5 ms·

What 'blitz'? There was one bridge-burning editorial by an outgoing VP. Then you have Taibbi doing what he's done day-in, day-out for quite some time now. An

by roc 15y ago

What 'blitz'? There was one bridge-burning editorial by an outgoing VP. Then you have Taibbi doing what he's done day-in, day-out for quite some time now. And after that is just the 24-hour news groups doing what they do, which is latching onto and flogging the stories of the day that are generating interest. And when you mix Rage-At-Wall-Street with what amounts to a Gossip column, the reader response is pretty predictable.

tptacek 15y ago
GS has thousands and thousands of VPs, many with as few as one direct report. This particular former VP apparently had zero direct reports. Part of what makes this story smelly is the prominence being given to this one voice; very little of the reporting on the story puts his title (normally a fairly senior one) into perspective. According to the Dealbook post mentioned downthread, almost 1/3rd of all of Goldman's employees have the same title this person does.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
- roc 15y ago
  And I'm pretty sure that if any of those other VPs were willing to pen a bridge-burning gossip piece, plenty of editors would be competing to give them space. Similarly, the tilt in coverage can't be a new concept for anyone here. We've known for quite some time that you can more-reliably predict news coverage based on the outlet's target market than based on the facts. The idea that some news agencies are playing this up and others are playing it down can't possibly be a surprise.
  - eternalban 15y ago
    Then how come NYTimes is mum on Dr. Pham's spill the beans press release to zerohedge.com of yesterday? (Google: Pham CGO, and see if NYTimes.com shows up ..)
    - roc 15y ago
      It's a good question, but I would suggest it's just that robosigning as a topic never much caught on with the wider public. (tragically) And if we're still talking about possible evidence of concerted press collusion, it's worth noting that Taibbi has been pounding on the robosigning drum far louder and longer than any 'traditional' news organization. So surely we can't consider his coverage of Goldman to be evidence of a concerted 'blitz' and yet discount his coverage of robosigning in making an argument of coverup.

by roc 15y ago

tptacek 15y ago

GS has thousands and thousands of VPs, many with as few as one direct report. This particular former VP apparently had zero direct reports. Part of what makes this story smelly is the prominence being given to this one voice; very little of the reporting on the story puts his title (normally a fairly senior one) into perspective. According to the Dealbook post mentioned downthread, almost 1/3rd of all of Goldman's employees have the same title this person does.

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
roc 15y ago
And I'm pretty sure that if any of those other VPs were willing to pen a bridge-burning gossip piece, plenty of editors would be competing to give them space. Similarly, the tilt in coverage can't be a new concept for anyone here. We've known for quite some time that you can more-reliably predict news coverage based on the outlet's target market than based on the facts. The idea that some news agencies are playing this up and others are playing it down can't possibly be a surprise.
- eternalban 15y ago
  Then how come NYTimes is mum on Dr. Pham's spill the beans press release to zerohedge.com of yesterday? (Google: Pham CGO, and see if NYTimes.com shows up ..)
  - roc 15y ago
    It's a good question, but I would suggest it's just that robosigning as a topic never much caught on with the wider public. (tragically) And if we're still talking about possible evidence of concerted press collusion, it's worth noting that Taibbi has been pounding on the robosigning drum far louder and longer than any 'traditional' news organization. So surely we can't consider his coverage of Goldman to be evidence of a concerted 'blitz' and yet discount his coverage of robosigning in making an argument of coverup.