4 ms·
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.
by 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 agoThen 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 agoIt'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.