Why Stop At Embattled? How 'Bout Thriving? Or Soaring? Or "The Most Majestic Bank In All The Land Still Kicking Ass And Taking Names"?

Author:
Publish date:
Updated on

We are fully aware of the potential damage of an irresponsible media but the latest correction from the New York Times really grinds our gears:

A front-page headline on Wednesday with an article about Warren E. Buffett's plan to invest $5 billion in the Wall Street investment banking firm Goldman Sachs described that company as "ailing." While its stock has been battered and it has agreed to tighter government regulation and wants to raise more capital from investors, "embattled" would have been a more accurate headline description of Goldman's state than "ailing."

Seriously, Goldman Sachs? SERIOUSLY? I'm sorry but no. You got your precious no short rule, and your bank holding company and your investment from Warren Buffett. Fuck off and let these Times reporters have their (barely) hyperbolic adjectives. NYT we'd say we're disappointed in you for not having the pair to stand up to the GS flack that was dispatched to deal with this, but let's be honest, you're one in a long line of people who refuses to tell Blankfein and Co. where they can shove it. Kudos on putting the correction above an obituary, though. I did appreciate that. Subversive little minxes.
Corrections [NYT via NYM]

Related