4 ms·
The author is saying that no one at a high level knew the risks that were being taken off the books. Fair enough, that's something we need to fix. Apparently Sa
by aristus 18y ago
The author is saying that no one at a high level knew the risks that were being taken off the books. Fair enough, that's something we need to fix. Apparently Sarbanes-Oxley didn't work.
But then the author tries to give Cramer a pass ("just an entertainer") by skipping Stewart's point: CNBC touts its talent as experts in financial news. Even the author goes back to calling Cramer a "financial journalist" a paragraph later. You don't get to quick-change between the suit of expertise and the fig-leaf of opinion.
If the CEO doesn't know when his own company is in trouble... that's news, right?
- eli 18y agoErr, no, the author wasn't giving him a pass. He was saying just the opposite; that Cramer never should have copped to being an entertainer and that it was the result of a sort of "Stockholm Syndrome"