As previously mentioned, back in December there was a "situation" at Reuters wherein the newswire chose not to run Matthew Goldstein's story on Patricia Cohen suing her ex-husband, Steve Cohen, and alleging things like Stevie insider trading. It was unclear why the article was held, and it still is, even after editor-in-chief David Schlesinger held a conference call with staffers to discuss the issue. Schlesinger said it was "not a bad story" and "could have run" but still failed to say why it, you know, didn't. If SAC did in fact complain about the story, well, that's probably to expected. Most people or organizations would at least try. What we want is the unanswered question as to why Reuters kowtowed to the request. Was it that:
a) Schlesinger had recently re-read this story, and the line "For kids, getting invited to the Cohens is one of the most coveted invitations in Greenwich" really stuck out with him. He wanted to score one of those coveted invites. He wanted it so bad. Putting the kibosh on the story seemed like it would help him achieve that goal.
b) He was hoping for a ride on the Zamboni
c) It brought back painful memories of the time his mom tried to shake-down his dad for money
d) The never-ending quest of the love of a man named Stevie
e) It was suggested Reuters could be given the exclusive rights to the used panties Andrew Tong left behind if the article didn't run
f) Nothing. Reuters simply does not run hedge fund stories that don't involve cross-dressing. No cross-dressing, no story.
g) you tell us