The article appeared at six on Saturday morning.
It was in a national financial publication — one with significant readership and a reputation for serious business journalism that made its errors, when they occurred, more consequential than errors in lesser outlets. The journalist had done real reporting — had found the Calloway connection, had found the historical Morano material, had connected them accurately. The reporting on those facts was correct.
The conclusion was wrong.
The piece implied — not stated directly, but implied through juxtaposition and selective emphasis — that the Morano Holdings restructure was reactive rather than deliberate. That it was a response to Calloway’s arrest rather than a process that had been underway for nine months before Calloway became a legal mat
