So le NYT Editorial Board writes on the basis of one sentence in a POlitico article now?

[Mass]

I have not doubt that this article will end up being true (Cantor will continue to serve the finance industry in one category or another), but this editorial is disturbing by what it reveals of the laziness of the paper of record. If it does it on something as trivial, what does that mean of the way they approach more important topics.

Anyway, this is the editorial of the NYTimes tomorrow, that some may have already read.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/10/opinion/sunday/eric-cantors-big-payoff.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=0

Once again, this is not a defense of Cantor (he deserves all this vitriol or will deserve it soon), but it is the journalistic process here.

First, the editorial starts by this amazing assertion

Residents of Virginia’s Seventh Congressional District won’t be able to meet their representative at a town hall during the August recess because they won’t have one as of Aug. 18.

Seriously? Cantor did town meetings? Who knew?

Then it continues by this sentence

His aides and colleagues told Politico that he is already looking for a job in the private sector, ideally with a hedge fund, a private equity firm, or a big bank.

And this is my major problem. This entire editorial seems based on ONE sentence of the politico article (which is largely filled by rumors and comments of people who say what they think Cantor will do. And this aides comment is actually this sentence

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=46BFC5D5-7D6F-4A7F-81E3-9A922BBF2A74

While Cantor would be widely sought after in Washington, he is more seriously considering potential hedge fund, private equity or big bank opportunities, according to sources familiar with his post-Congress thinking.

Now, once again, this does not seem impossible. Cantor's history could lead to that, but there are other avenues. And being based on an anonymous source that may or may not be informed is not the same thing (except if the Times has named sources).

The article continues with the link of Cantor and the financial industry (yes, they are certainly very solid).

But, once again, why not wait until he has announced where he is going, and more importantly, why is it the way the media works these days, without any accountability to the reader We read this type of craps about Democrats all the time, and they are never called out when they turn to be wrong.

[JI7]

1. ny times is not what it used to be

the same goes for many other papers.

it's one reason i don't feel bad about them going out of business. it's not just new technology which has hurt them.

it's their own lazy reporting.

[freshwest]

2. NYT is on and off. Disturbing this passed the 'Editorial Board.' Reporting must bore them now.

[onecaliberal]

3. It's not that far of a leap really

Especially when you consider he was working for all of them while serving in Congress.

[Mass]

5. Yes, and they could have written a good editorial. Frankly, that they refer

to an anonymous quote in a second rate magazine as their only source that this is probably going to happen bothers me (particularly as this is a treatment they apply to Obama and Democrats, but until now, I thought it was an anti-Democratic bias. Apparently, it is laziness).

[Fred Sanders]

4. Why is the political corruption represented by a sitting Congressman sold to the highest bidder

even discussed?

Because it is out in the open, or acceptable to whisper about, does not make it less corrupt, it makes it seem more acceptable.

I do not like the tone of the editorial as well...seems deflective of the real crime.