“The strife distracted everyone because no one could push back,” said one current trader in the office who insisted on anonymity because of the nature of the issue.
— The New York Times, “Discord at Key JPMorgan Unit Is Blamed in Bank’s Huge Loss,” May 20, 2012, Page 1A
By Joel Thurtell
Because of the nature of the issue.
That line is acceptable at the Times for withholding a source’s name in an article that heaps blame for $3 billion in stock trading losses on an executive who is gone?
Come on, New York Times!
Why give cover to cowards?
Well, without bile from masked mudslingers, Times reporters Jessica Silver-Greenberg and Nelson D. Schwartz had at best an inside-the-paper headline.
Heaping blame on Ina Drew, the recently resigned head of JPMorgan’s chief investment office unit, elevated the story to 1A status.
Nobody has accused Ina Drew of making three billion bucks worth of bad trades.
The bad stuff was done on her watch, so she fell on her sword.
Gone, history.
Why are we reading about her?
Wait — who did the bad trades?
Not Ina Drew. According to the Times, she was not around very much.
The cat was away, so who was playing?
Could it have been…traders?
Hmmm.
And who are the spineless wretches spilling their guts to the Timesters?
Traders who still have their jobs.
Drew is gone.
Her boss, JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon, did not do the bad trades.
Still, his credibility, like Drew’s, is on the line: The buck stops at the top.
We could very well see Dimon’s name in the list of casualties, along with Drew.
But these anonymous traders still work in the very office where all the trouble was made.
Maybe they did the bad trades!
How self-serving for these traders to INSIST on anonymity so they can skewer someone who has already taken responsibility and decamped.
They don’t have the balls to skewer Dimon, because for now, at least, he’s still in charge.
He could still fire someone who attacks him directly.
Could dump someone who goes after him indirectly, too. Say, for instance, by slandering Dimon’s former lieutenant, Ina Drew.
Perps looking to shift blame would love to feed bullshit to a gullible Times reporter or two willing to let them point at Ina Drew.
Hint to scapegoaters: Tell the journalists you can’t let them print your name…
…because of the nature of the issue.
