A report in The Los Angeles Times "Bank bailout plan's 'stress tests' already causing stress " draws on conjecture by various parties, some who know more than others or not about the financial industry, whether the stress tests the Obama folk are doing will do any good.
The end tone of the piece was negative, which would be about as much of a surprise as a similar development coming from a Murdoch publication.
Is the lack of balance deliberate, or a result of a tendency to bias from the people questioned?
Are these people assessing accurately, or are they, like most in the financial industry and it's hangers on, having a trantrum because the Obama team are not treating them like the Bush administration did, with open hands full of money and no inspection or control.
An recent report by the Times "Obama begins leading America in a new direction " shows how badly the Obama administration has stepped on the toes of fat cats. (Did Bam really say "My administration is the only thing between you and the pitchforks."? Way to go, Dude!)
So financial fat cats are embittered, and ready to offer hostile quotes to a couple of reporters that want to pretend to do a major report in the journalistic equivalent of the 'clips show'.
I wish I had made a list of all the people on the right and the left, from pundits to reporters collecting quotes, who had decided or implied that -- with Obama in the White House and the people he had picked for positions of financial importance -- we would be in absolute meltdown right now. Instead recent reports show that banks and financial institutions are healthier now, with someare even making a profit.
So I'm not impressed with a 'report' pronouncing new doom on the nation because of what some people assume the Obama administration will be doing about the financial institutions in the future.