The SEC is charging the billionaire Wyly brothers with a massive fraud involving $550 million in ill-gotten gains from a scheme it says involved insider trading, overseas accounts, and front companies
Big story, no? But how big? The Financial Times’s Alphaville says “Knocks Martha Stewart, Galleon, etc into a cocked hat…” I think that means it’s big.
The New York Times and The Washington Post both put the news on page one. The Journal squeezes it into a single column on C1. That takes some doing—jamming such a big thing into so small a space. Sure, the paper does make the story the top blurb in the “Business & Finance” column on page one, but that only makes the case for bigger play.
I hate to be cynical here, but the paper is making its own bed on this, and I get the feeling that had the Wylys been two of the biggest Democratic Party donors rather than Republican ones, the main question for the WSJ would have been: Four-column hed—or six? In fact, I don’t see how you keep this story off page one.
I’d be inclined to let it slide if it weren’t for the fact that the words “Republican” and “conservative” aren’t mentioned once in the Journal’s story.
Meanwhile, the Times notes the political aspect in its lede, and the Post has it in its headline. These Wylys are bigtime political patrons.
“They are among the biggest of the big when it comes to campaign bank-rollers, and their donors list is a who’s who of the Republican Party over the past decade,” said Dave Levinthal, a spokesman at the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. “It’s almost hard to find prominent Republicans who haven’t been a beneficiary of their financial largess. They’ve definitely been very kind, financially speaking, to a number of Republicans.”
Plus, it’s a juicy story. Come on, Rupe! Here’s the Post on what the SEC alleges went down:
According to the SEC, the brothers, who live in Dallas, created an elaborate and clandestine network of accounts and companies on the Isle of Man and in the Cayman Islands. The brothers then used these accounts and companies to trade more than $750 million of stock in four public companies on whose boards they served, not filing the disclosures required for corporate insiders, the SEC said.
In one case, the SEC alleges that the Wylys traded based on insider information they learned as board members, netting a profit of $32 million.
This story is right in the WSJ’s wheelhouse. And it pops it up.
I thought you lamented the day when there was *no* news on A1! Best indication of what the Journal considers important is the What's News box, where, as you note, the Wyly story was tops.
#1 Posted by Zach Seward, CJR on Fri 30 Jul 2010 at 04:11 PM
Hi, Zach,
I think you mean I've bemoaned the commoditization of page one that's happened under Murdoch. Sure, but it's News Corp.'s WSJ that decided to plaster all that commodity news on page one. That's why this sticks out when it doesn't.
But the Journal already has had news stories on A1 for eight years now (though a lot fewer), well before Murdoch came along and made it more on-the-news.
The Martha Stewart news mentioned above was A1 in the WSJ on October 22, 2002. The Galleon case, also above, was A1 WSJ on October 17, 2009.
Both were far smaller than the Wyly case. And like I said, I'd be more inclined to think of this as news judgment if it weren't for the fact that the paper didn't mention the GOP connection at all. Pre-Murdoch stories on the Wylys on A1 and C1 mentioned that.
#2 Posted by Ryan Chittum, CJR on Fri 30 Jul 2010 at 05:03 PM
Zach, It's the WSJ's new regime that decided to go big with commodity news on A1 and elsewhere. If that's the standard, it should go with it, and not just when it's convenient. And you misunderstand the What's News column. It was never meant to substitute for appropriate play of core subjects.
#3 Posted by Dean Starkman, CJR on Fri 30 Jul 2010 at 05:14 PM
First sentence was a joke!
#4 Posted by Zach Seward, CJR on Fri 30 Jul 2010 at 05:32 PM
Leave it to the CJR to once again take a partisan angle itself. This magazine sucks.
Chittum and gang are doing to CJR what Greg Mitchell did to E&P.
#5 Posted by CJR (D), CJR on Fri 30 Jul 2010 at 08:48 PM
Yes, and the NY Times played down the Democratic angle in Sidney Harmon's bid for NEWSWEEK, too. Harmon's donations to Democrats were mentioned, but the story didn't get around to noting that Sidney is the spouse of Rep. Jane Harmon of California. Imagine if that was a Republican gazillionaire married to a GOP Congresswoman . . . I expect the Times would have mentioned her name . . .
#6 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Sat 31 Jul 2010 at 08:41 AM
Mark, I don't mean to be rude, but has anyone brought to your attention that you're boring?
Your one and only take on the world seems to be that it's biased for the left and "if so and so was a conservative, JUST IMAGINE THE HORROR THAT WOULD BE UNLEASHED!"
Get outside dude. There are butterflies this time of year. You should learn to appreciate the sweeter things in life, lest you become bitter.
#7 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sat 31 Jul 2010 at 01:44 PM
Thimbles - But then Mark would find out the real truth - that butterflies spread the news to all other animals in a way that's biased against the right! And we really don't want him finding out about the international left-wing conspiracy among the non-human animals of the planet.
#8 Posted by Greg Andrew, CJR on Sun 1 Aug 2010 at 11:54 AM
Or maybe the WSJ recognizes that the SEC is inept and trolls for headlines. No question the SEC spins a great Press Release, but it may be there is no there there in the SEC case and thats why the WSJ didnt blow it out.
And maybe the other major publications need to recognize this as well. The SEC is a desperate organization. Goldman didnt cure anything.
Bottom line is that there is no good reason to trust the SEC. Maybe it was the WSJ that got it right
#9 Posted by John, CJR on Sun 1 Aug 2010 at 12:23 PM
Shhhh! The first rule of JournoZoo is that no one talks about about JournoZoo. Except the butterflies of course... they're pretty quiet.
#10 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sun 1 Aug 2010 at 12:30 PM
Thimbles, uh, boring or not, I post less often than you do, I believe, which may be one measure of how often you vs. I get outside . . . planning a motorcycle trip to SF next month, as a matter of fact. Be glad to match life experience with you and Greg any time, but as I've noted, you don't even post under your real name, so I have a feeling the conversation stops here.
#11 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Mon 2 Aug 2010 at 12:51 PM
BTW, Ryan might want to look up the name 'Hassan Nemazee' if he wants to complain about the MSM burying a campaign-donor scandal. Never heard of him? Gee, I wonder why?
#12 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Mon 2 Aug 2010 at 12:53 PM
I wonder why to since you would have if you read bloomberg, the wall street journal, the new york times... etc...
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/16/nyregion/16nemazee.html
All of whom have no problem bringing up the Democratic fund raising affiliations, many by name (Obama, Clinton, Kerry).
See?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125192477445680911.html
There you go, "prominent Democratic fund-raiser Hassan Nemazee" "who once served as finance chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee" all in front of the pay wall.
So what is your point? That you wanted to support Ryan's point that:
"I get the feeling that had the Wylys been two of the biggest Democratic Party donors rather than Republican ones, the main question for the WSJ would have been: Four-column hed—or six? In fact, I don’t see how you keep this story off page one.
I’d be inclined to let it slide if it weren’t for the fact that the words “Republican” and “conservative” aren’t mentioned once in the Journal’s story."
Because that's what you did. And that's why you're boring, because you have no principled consistency, you have party consistency. I don't know why you've picked the republicans and the conservatives to represent you, but it doesn't seem to be because you care about what they stand for. You defend republican excesses by claiming democrats do it to. You don't condemn the republican behavior, you charge the media for spending too much time on your poor little party while neglecting democratic scandals from a year to ten years ago, and you don't even check whether that charge is founded.
There's no truth to you, Therefore why should we should pay attention to you?
#13 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Mon 2 Aug 2010 at 04:27 PM
If Chittum were consistent, he would be asking why the Washington Post put the Wylys story on page 1, but buried the news of Nemazee's conviction in a brief AP report buried inside the paper. After all, an actual conviction -- one would think -- is more newsworthy than someone being accused of something. (I couldn't find anything in the WaPo archives about charges being brought against him.)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/15/AR2010071506540.html
This is consistent with Mark Ryan's point, and raises the question of why CJR has given WaPo a pass but gone after WSJ.
#14 Posted by Frank, CJR on Mon 2 Aug 2010 at 08:00 PM
Guys, the story is a year old
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/26/AR2009082603498.html
and in every mention of the story, Democrats are named as beneficiaries. This is consistent with politically connected fraud until the WSJ.
And even the wrap up article above made A03.
You and Mark seem to be trying to distract from a legitimate complaint, you don't seem to be making legitimate complaints yourselves.
#15 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Tue 3 Aug 2010 at 12:19 AM
I'm going to do a Mark Richard here..
Everybody knows about Charley Rangel, ethics violations, daily show coverage of his poolside manner
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-march-2-2010/the-new-york-crimes---david-paterson---charles-rangel
It's getting wide play now because of the ethics probe...
So why is John Ensign not getting much play when John Ensign, family values republican who FOX initially covered up for when they were tipped off by the husband of the woman John Ensign was sleeping with, getting no play when he faces a criminal investigation?
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_07/024969.php
Heavens to betsy, how peculiar.
Now there are reasons why I don't do the Mark Richard everyday and the reason ain't because it can't be done.
The reasons are a) I don't feel the need to defend Charley Rangel. Charley Rangel merits his own coverage, as does John Ensign, without distraction.
b) I don't feel the need to be a victim all the time.
c) I don't defend parties, I defend a principles. I don't defend violations of principles by pointing at someone else.
d) the above make for boring reading when it's repeated over and over again.
We get Mark. You are an encyclopedia of lefty democrat scandal. There are times when such knowledge adds to the conversation, but most of the time you use it to distract and move the spotlight away from your team's embarrassments.
I'm just letting you know the shtick is getting old.
#16 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Tue 3 Aug 2010 at 01:48 AM
Thimbles, back in the real world, Charles Rangel is a lot more important and powerful in Congress than is John Ensign. Funny how you repeat Krugman's exact talking point from 'This Week' a couple of days ago. I still think there is a chance that you are really Krugman, or his spouse. C'mon, you can tell me. I won't give away your secret. I'm just curious.
The ethics difficulties of Rangel have been kicking around since 2008, but at that time (an election year) the MSM was still breathlessly reporting on every twist and turn of the GOP scandal boys. Ney, Cunningham, etc. I'm still waiting for that long-promised Tom Delay indictment with bated breath.
If I bore you, don't read me. I suspect that you're not bored, just looking for another ad hominem put-down angle, this time a little above the usual 8th grade schoolyard level.
#17 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Tue 3 Aug 2010 at 12:16 PM
Thimbles, back in the real world, Charles Rangel is a lot more important and powerful in Congress than is John Ensign. Funny how you repeat Krugman's exact talking point from 'This Week' a couple of days ago. I still think there is a chance that you are really Krugman, or his spouse. C'mon, you can tell me. I won't give away your secret. I'm just curious.
The ethics difficulties of Rangel have been kicking around since 2008, but at that time (an election year) the MSM was still breathlessly reporting on every twist and turn of the GOP scandal boys. Ney, Cunningham, etc. I'm still waiting for that long-promised Tom Delay indictment with bated breath.
If I bore you, don't read me. I suspect that you're not bored, just looking for another ad hominem put-down angle, this time a little above the usual 8th grade schoolyard level.
#18 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Tue 3 Aug 2010 at 12:17 PM
??
The secret is, no I'm not Krugman. Now you know. Shhhhhh.
And the truth is yup, I do get bored. I may not be Krugman, but I am human and yeah, sometimes I want to post a rely to something you've said, but I go through the whole conversation in my head and realize the futility of it.
For instance, the Sherrod incident
http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/calling_a_spade_a_spade_or_a_f.php
http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/after_the_storm_1.php
Part of me wanted to ask how you could defend Fox news accepting the work of a known partisans (which he was known to be by real journalists like Shep Smith) when you've raised how damaging it was to journalism when news organizations used Naderite partisans in some who cares scandal 20 years ago.
Part of me wanted to, but the answer just wasn't worth it to the rest of me. I knew what was going to come.
Tedium.
It's not as hominem to call a rock a rock and when it comes to party politics and loyalty, you are a rock; take it as a compliment or an insult. It does make the conversation limited in its possibilities and when the possibilities are limited, it makes one ask "why bother?"
You tell me.
#19 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Tue 3 Aug 2010 at 01:59 PM
Mark, Frank,
Yes, I find it completely convincing that papers like the Times, home of the takedowns of Spitzer, Rangel, Blumenthal, and Paterson, are ignoring a campaign-donor scandal because dude's a Dem.
I found half a dozen NYT stories on the Nemazee scandal, and each one mentioned Obama or Democrats in the headline or lede of the piece.
The nobody's-ever-heard-of-his-business Nemazee, donor of $400,000 over the years, is a second-tier donor compared to the billionaire Wylys, donors of $2.5 million directly and originators of the 527 model that sparked a federal law.
While I'd like to see all Ponzi schemers and cozy-with-politicians crooks get A1 play, there are major differences here.
#20 Posted by Ryan Chittum, CJR on Wed 4 Aug 2010 at 08:11 AM
Ryan, fair enough, but Nemazee was tried and convicted, while the Wylys have only been charged, a distinction in deciding coverage.
But your defense of The Times is good. The paper is still worth reading on 'hard' reporting, and heaven knows that (in spite of the NY provincial assumption that places like South Carolina are uniquely odd or corrupt) the reporters on the local political beat have loads to work with, and have done so.
I would say that the attitude of The Times, and the journalists who follow The Times' lead in framing and vocabulary, is that the editors and reporters are not reliably pro-Democratic, but they are reliably anti-Republican.
Re your roster of Democrats investigated and exposed by The Times, well, when it comes to NY/New England/NJ politics . . . how many elected Republicans are actually left back there to bash? Reporter's gotta work with what he has. Cook County politics are all-Democratic, too, and generally are not (let us say) a model for the rest of the country - but that doesn't mean the proprietors of The Tribune or the Sun-Times are not still sympathetic overall to the Democrats against those outsiders in urban politics, the Republicans.
#21 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Wed 4 Aug 2010 at 12:46 PM
Mark's got a point Ryan. Let's all stop examining republicans, and the and the Murdoch properties who slant their coverage of them, and let's instead continue talking about old democrat scandals and the Nytimes because, as Mark says, blah blah blah, blah Blahblah blah blablah.
Is there a soul who can dispute this?
#22 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Wed 4 Aug 2010 at 02:39 PM