Follow-up from yesterday, NYT's Goldman obsession
From today's coverage, the New York Time's vindictive coverage of Goldman Sachs became more clear. From the over the edge hysteria of it one could almost assume that Gretchen Morgenson is directing it all.
Publishing the op-ed piece yesterday attacking Goldman was obviously viewed as a SCOOP by the NYT. Today's Times had their "scoop" as the front page lead story, the business page lead story, the entirety of page B6 in the business section and half of page B7, four stories in all recapping the op-ed piece written by a little known Vice President at Goldman, a company that has thousands of them(Yes, his business development title was Executive Director, a useful honorary term for business development overseas but his grade was Vice President). Referred to by the Times as a "Golden Boy", he was described by his colleagues quoted by the WSJ as a quiet hard worker who rarely voiced opinions.
The Wall Street Journal(WSJ), undeniably the leading daily business journal in the U.S., devoted one mid-C1 section to the story, 11 paragraphs.
One long standing characteristic of Goldman is that they were always tenacious competitors with everyone else on the Street. Since with their depth of talent they were often better, they took and controlled lucrative deals away from others more often than others did from them. So Goldman has plenty of New York finance types who love to see this as another example of their comeuppance. Maybe some are related to the New York Times, a paper that is never shy about turning their news in any section of the paper into angled exaggerations or semi-editorials.
Goldman has always had many loyal clients of all stripes. In the last two years they have probably lost some not due to the lack of desire to do business with them but due to the possible criticism they may get from dealing with this "tainted" firm. That is Goldman's biggest challenge today, damage control from the NYT's assault.
Their behavior through all of this financial difficulty has not been without fault for sure, but they have plenty of company, just about the entire crowd. The mystery of the NYT's obsession is what should be investigated now, not the resentments of a relatively low level vice president whose career had definitely stalled out.
Publishing the op-ed piece yesterday attacking Goldman was obviously viewed as a SCOOP by the NYT. Today's Times had their "scoop" as the front page lead story, the business page lead story, the entirety of page B6 in the business section and half of page B7, four stories in all recapping the op-ed piece written by a little known Vice President at Goldman, a company that has thousands of them(Yes, his business development title was Executive Director, a useful honorary term for business development overseas but his grade was Vice President). Referred to by the Times as a "Golden Boy", he was described by his colleagues quoted by the WSJ as a quiet hard worker who rarely voiced opinions.
The Wall Street Journal(WSJ), undeniably the leading daily business journal in the U.S., devoted one mid-C1 section to the story, 11 paragraphs.
One long standing characteristic of Goldman is that they were always tenacious competitors with everyone else on the Street. Since with their depth of talent they were often better, they took and controlled lucrative deals away from others more often than others did from them. So Goldman has plenty of New York finance types who love to see this as another example of their comeuppance. Maybe some are related to the New York Times, a paper that is never shy about turning their news in any section of the paper into angled exaggerations or semi-editorials.
Goldman has always had many loyal clients of all stripes. In the last two years they have probably lost some not due to the lack of desire to do business with them but due to the possible criticism they may get from dealing with this "tainted" firm. That is Goldman's biggest challenge today, damage control from the NYT's assault.
Their behavior through all of this financial difficulty has not been without fault for sure, but they have plenty of company, just about the entire crowd. The mystery of the NYT's obsession is what should be investigated now, not the resentments of a relatively low level vice president whose career had definitely stalled out.
posted by John Borden at 11:29 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home