I will leave the discussion of today’s monstrous bank bailout to David Dayen and Yves Smith, and just wanted to note an interesting shift in the NY Times’ fawning coverage of the servicing settlement. I only noticed because the headline changed depending on whose link I followed – in some cases, the links went to the 2/8 version, while in others they went to today’s.
This was the Thursday version of the headline:
And here is the current headline:
While this is technically true, as Dayen and Smith point out, the amount that homeowners will actually get is laughably small relative to the damage done, let alone relative to the immunity this gives the banks going forward. It is also telling that the preliminary article was more even-handed in its discussion of the settlement, while the later version omits the more cautious second paragraph of the first article.
It is understandable that opinions of the settlement will change over time as more details come to light. What is less understandable is how the story is clearly being managed in one direction by the editors, and the nature of that direction.