Ryan Chittum of Columbia Journalism Review writes that the business media coverage of the Stanford Financial case has been somewhat misleading in describing the size of the alleged fraud.
“Sure, it’s not technically wrong. Stanford is alleged to have sold $8 billion worth of certificates of deposit by misleading investors. But the ‘$8 billion fraud’ phrase implies that all or most of the money has disappeared, which as far as I can tell isn’t the case. (UPDATE: Felix Salmon makes a great case for why most of it has likely disappeared.)
“The Stanford case is just bizarre. How could a firm not raise suspicions much earlier than it did when it was promising returns on CDs that doubled the average? And it was run in part out of Antigua.
“The SEC has been caught snoozing again and is scrambling to look tough. Check out this Reuters video of agents raiding Stanford. Talk about made for TV. You can practically hear a producer standing off camera, yelling ‘aaaand ACTION!'”
Read more here.
PCWorld executive editor Gordon Mah Ung, a tireless journalist we once described as a founding father…
CNBC senior vice president Dan Colarusso sent out the following on Monday: Before this year comes to…
Business Insider editor in chief Jamie Heller sent out the following on Monday: I'm excited to share…
Former CoinDesk editorial staffer Michael McSweeney writes about the recent happenings at the cryptocurrency news site, where…
Manas Pratap Singh, finance editor for LinkedIn News Europe, has left for a new opportunity…
Washington Post executive editor Matt Murray sent out the following on Friday: Dear All, Over the last…