The Murdoch-ization of the WSJ
Or, do I mean the FOX-ization?
Take a peak at this wonderful article in the WSJ --> Czar Blocks BofA Chief's Pay.
Now you, or I (or frankly, pretty much any clear thinking rational person), would read this headline to mean that Feinberg (the 'Czar') called up BofA, and said 'Nope, no way, nohow do you give Ken Lewis any salary'. Or, maybe, you (yes, you, the wingnut), read this to mean The Downfall Of Capitalism thanks to that Pretend President.
Doesnt really matter, in that if you actually read the article - yeah, yeah, I know. Read? Who actually Reads nowadays? - you'd see that
a) Ken Lewis is stepping down with a $69.3M package
b) There is nothing that the Gummint can do about it
c) Feinberg suggested that Ken Lewis forgo his pay
d) Ken Lewis, then, volunteered to forgo his pay.
Yes, I know, you *could* read Feinberg's suggestion as a 'Do this or else' ploy. But then again, why not read this as Ken Lewis saying "Whoops, I better get out while the getting is good?". I mean, he *is* retiring, and what does he have to gain by going up against Feinberg?
The bottom line here is that the headline (and also one choice paragraph inside involving a quote from Nancy Busy) are really not indicative of the article as a whole.
Which brings me back to the Murdoch-ization. Make the headline a doozy. Incite the people. Doesnt matter if the reality has nothing to do with the headline - the people are suckers anyhow.
Oh how the mighty have fallen - the WSJ ('cept for the editorial page whack-a-doodles) used to be up there with the NYT when it came to insightful reporting, definitely a 'must-read' paper. Nowadays, I barely even bother reading it when I get one from free at a hotel. Sigh...
Take a peak at this wonderful article in the WSJ --> Czar Blocks BofA Chief's Pay.
Now you, or I (or frankly, pretty much any clear thinking rational person), would read this headline to mean that Feinberg (the 'Czar') called up BofA, and said 'Nope, no way, nohow do you give Ken Lewis any salary'. Or, maybe, you (yes, you, the wingnut), read this to mean The Downfall Of Capitalism thanks to that Pretend President.
Doesnt really matter, in that if you actually read the article - yeah, yeah, I know. Read? Who actually Reads nowadays? - you'd see that
a) Ken Lewis is stepping down with a $69.3M package
b) There is nothing that the Gummint can do about it
c) Feinberg suggested that Ken Lewis forgo his pay
d) Ken Lewis, then, volunteered to forgo his pay.
Yes, I know, you *could* read Feinberg's suggestion as a 'Do this or else' ploy. But then again, why not read this as Ken Lewis saying "Whoops, I better get out while the getting is good?". I mean, he *is* retiring, and what does he have to gain by going up against Feinberg?
The bottom line here is that the headline (and also one choice paragraph inside involving a quote from Nancy Busy) are really not indicative of the article as a whole.
Which brings me back to the Murdoch-ization. Make the headline a doozy. Incite the people. Doesnt matter if the reality has nothing to do with the headline - the people are suckers anyhow.
Oh how the mighty have fallen - the WSJ ('cept for the editorial page whack-a-doodles) used to be up there with the NYT when it came to insightful reporting, definitely a 'must-read' paper. Nowadays, I barely even bother reading it when I get one from free at a hotel. Sigh...
Comments