[ojbyrne]

The business press is where journalists become hacks. Access to executives generally involves so much stroking that fact-checking, integrity, and good writing are all put aside.

Especially if they're executives at companies that happen to advertise in your magazine/newspaper/website.

[ilamont]

If the business press lacks integrity and skips fact-checking responsibilities, then why is it that journalists at the Wall Street Journal have consistently uncovered and published news of wrongdoing at some of the biggest corporations in the United States, including Bear Stearns, Enron, and HP? I can also think of incidents at computer magazines and online game review sites in the past two years in which writers have refused to go along with advertising- and business-related pressures and left or lost their jobs as a result. How do these incidents fit into your theory about the business press?

[ojbyrne]

Certainly the people leaving their jobs fits my theory. Giving up your integrity is not for everyone. And in searching for your sources on Enron I couldn't help but notice that the few good articles were swamped by the bad ones. Enron was Fortune's "most innovative" company for five years straight.

[LogicHoleFlaw]

Their accounting certainly was "innovative." Unfortunately innovation in bookkeeping is often a bad idea. For good reason.

[Andys]

My gut feeling is, by the time you read about a scandal in the press, its too late. Everyone else who was in the loop has already cashed out.

[Prrometheus]

Much of the real business news (such as the nitty-gritty of the Bear Stearns buy-out) is leaked by insiders, so no access to executives is necessary. The Wall Street Journal regularly brutalizes major corporations on the front page, I don't think they follow the theory of the grandparent comment.