How the New York Times Hides the Truth About Wall Street's Catastrophic Misdeeds

AlterNet, Wall Street On Parade by Pam Martens | Jul. 2, 2012 (Investigative Report)
The paper of record is in serious need of a fact checker when it comes to whether the Glass-Steagall Act could have prevented the financial crisis.

The paper of record is in serious need of a fact checker when it comes to whether the Glass-Steagall Act could have prevented the financial crisis. Promoting ignorance could help sink the financial system -- again. Full Story »

Posted by Dwight Rousu

More Info

Tags Help
Subjects: U.S., Politics, Business, Media
Topics: Law, Finance, Ethics in Journalism, Journalism, Corruption
Stats Help
# Tweets: 5 (as of 2012-07-02)
Editorial Help
Posted by: Posted by Dwight Rousu - Jul 2, 2012 - 9:52 AM PDT
Reviewed by: Sirajul Islam (review), Dwight Rousu (review), punjab951 (review)
Content Type: Article
Edit Lock: This story can be edited
Edited by: Dwight Rousu - Jul 2, 2012 - 9:55 AM PDT

Reviews

Show All Comments
Show All | Notes | Comments | Quotes | Links
Sirajul Islam
3.9
 by Sirajul Islam - Jul. 2, 2012

A co-exclusive detailed report by Pam Martens.that also appeared on Wall Street on Parade. It's about an editorial of NYT on April 8, 1998, when the respected newspaper ran an editorial pushing for the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act which could have prevented the financial crisis. The report is based on fact, and quoted many sources and references. It's a good piece in journalism.

See Full Review » (19 answers)
Dwight Rousu
4.4
 by Dwight Rousu - Jul. 2, 2012

So now the NY Times is part of the corporate lie machine?...

Having greased the skids for the financial debacle, the New York Times, instead of doing an intense examination of how it got it so wrong, is now permitting the ... More »

Dwight posted this story.
See Full Review » (12 answers)
punjab951
NO RATING
by punjab951 - Jul. 4, 2012

Really?

See Full Review » (1 answer)

Comments on this story Help (BETA)

Sort by: Oldest | Newest Hide All Replies
NT Rating | My Rating

Ratings

4.1

Good
from 3 reviews (27% confidence)
Quality
4.1
Facts
4.0
Fairness
4.0
Information
4.0
Insight
4.0
Sourcing
3.5
Style
4.0
Accuracy
4.0
Balance
4.0
Context
4.5
Depth
4.5
Enterprise
4.5
Expertise
3.0
Originality
4.0
Relevance
4.5
Transparency
3.0
Responsibility
4.0
Popularity
4.1
Recommendation
4.0
Credibility
4.5
# Reviews
1.5
# Views
5.0
# Likes
1.0
# Emails
1.0
More
How our ratings work »
(See these related stories.)

Links Help

No links yet. Please review this story to add some!