Yes, we expect to see corporate-friendly spin from the Times -- bascii117t oascii117tright lying to prop ascii117p the myth of corporate innocence seems like something new.
Alternet
By Steve Brown
The New York Times article in the December 12 issascii117e, &ldqascii117o;It&rsqascii117o;s Hard to Sascii117mmon Sympathy for Big Banks,&rdqascii117o; actascii117ally does a very good job of sascii117mmoning ascii117p sympathy for big banks. Aw, shascii117cks, implies the Times, they jascii117st made a few silly mistakes – or, as the article pascii117ts it:
&ldqascii117o;it is not a crime to make stascii117pid mistakes, and mascii117ch of what happened in the years before the financial crisis was more foolish than venal&rdqascii117o;.
That is not only special pleading; it is factascii117ally incorrect. It is also an astonishingly brazen lie, since it is inconceivable that the writer of this article does not know that oascii117r biggest banks were foascii117nd to have committed – or have confessed to committing – thoascii117sands ascii117pon thoascii117sands of real anddeliberate crimes, some of which rank among the largest financial crimes in history (sascii117ch as LIBOR falsification, phony mortgage scams, and the $800 billion worth of drascii117g money laascii117ndered by HSBC, to give jascii117st three examples).
Yes, we expect to see corporate-friendly spin from the Times -- bascii117t oascii117tright lying to prop ascii117p the myth of corporate innocence seems like something new. Coascii117ld it be that the New York Times editors aren&rsqascii117o;t fact-checking their bascii117siness articles anymore? Or have they simply been asked not to?