Adam Hanft of The Huffington Post writes Monday that The Wall Street Journal‘s story last week about Bear Stearns CEO James Cayne shows that the paper will become more rumor-driven like other tabloids owned by News Corp. CEO Rupert Murdoch.
“Consider these weasels and caveats sprinkled toxically through the piece:
• ‘Attendees say..’
• ‘…according to someone who was there…’
• ‘…associates say…’
• ‘Friends say…’
• ‘On July 12th, chatting with visitors over lunch…’
• ‘On another occasion, he told a visitor…’
• ‘…participants say.’
• ‘…according to people familiar with the calls…’
• ‘Mr. Cayne had left, say two people who were there with him…’
“Beyond these unsubstantiated allegations is the invidious comparison between Mr. Cayne’s purportedly disengaged management style, and that of other CEOs of sub-prime plagued companies.”
Read more here.Â
Bloomberg Law has hired Olivia Alafriz to cover insurance litigation and regulation. She is on the corporate…
Bloomberg Law has hired Lauren Clason to cover health benefits. She has been a health care reporter…
New York Times business editor Ellen Pollock sent out the following: I’m excited to announce: Mohammed Hadi…
Hannah Dreier, an investigative reporter at The New York Times, won a Pulitzer Prize for investigative reporting…
The Washington Business Journal has hired Ben Peters to cover commercial real estate. He has been the…
Bloomberg Radio has a rare opportunity for a motivated, hardworking Producer to contribute to it's…
View Comments
Using this argument, we should discount all the leaked statements by government workers when they spilled classified documents to the NYT.
Why is it surprising company employees would not identify themselves? Unlike the government, in corporate America these employees would be fired in less than a day.
Given corporate malfeasance of late I thought the real story was that the leading business journal was actively questioning executive oversight of a huge industry wide problem that reeks of moral ineptitude. This kind of ethics has gone on long enough in too many boardrooms. Not being involved in such a crisis is not effective delegation; its dereliction of duty.
How is the WSJ not doing the right thing again?
I agree completely with King Kull. There are differences between rumors and anonymous sources.
And more importantly, I don't think News Corp. would change the nature of the paper over-night and take the risk of annoying its current reader-base who seem to be of serious nature.