re: #45 JasonA

From the page:

Ah. So that’s worse than the actual crimes. Okely dokely.

You know, at first I thought that WSJ and Fox should be covering this scandal. But if this is the crap we have to hear then I’d rather they went back to turning a blind eye.

Several years ago, a company you’ve heard of that I might or might not have worked for at some point found itself in a fairly minor scandal. The CEO at the time was awaiting trial for his 3rd or 4th DWI, and one of the local papers started nosing around. To make a long, stupid story short, the reporter discovered that the CEO had lied about his education on his resume. A comparatively minor shit-storm ensued, and the CEO was soon replaced (after collecting a 7-figure going-away present, of course).

As a result of this, IT policy changed company-wide, such that all user data like emails, documents, spreadsheets, lolcats, etc., stored on company servers gets nuked after xx days. No ifs, ands, or buts. The reason for the policy is that the company wants a degree of plausible deniability in the event documents are subpEEnerd. Sorry, Deputy Fife. We’d love to comply with your search warrant, but we threw that shit away months ago. Good luck with your investigation.

I’m not sure I even had a point, but if I did it was probably this: I {might have} witnessed first-hand how a huge corporation deals with a minor scandal, and from that I can extrapolate how things might be going for the people working at a far larger corporation, under far more dire circumstances. Of course, I have no evidence other than that which I’ve pulled out of my ass (metaphorically, mind you) but this makes me at least as qualified as any American news agency at this point.

The legal squadron at Fox News and the WSJ have probably decreed that nobody can say shit about shit, on pain of being asked by Jules Winfield to describe what Marsellus Wallace Rupert Murdoch looks like. Even if they’re 100% in the clear, they are in CYA DEFCON-5.

Or so I suspect.

Never mind.