Two Ways To Spin A Compensation Story
from the frugal-or-lavish? dept
It’s always fun to see how different news sources spin the exact same story. Sometimes you can say completely opposite things with the same facts. Take for instance the story about AOL’s bonuses for last year. The Reuters story makes AOL executives seem very understanding in that they had to “forgo bonuses” last year. Sounds like the right thing to do. The company did horribly, you might as well not get any bonus. However, the Washington Post story spins it the other way, saying that AOL executives received “lavish” bonuses last year. Wait a second… Turns out the difference is that they had to “forgo” cash bonuses, but still received “lavish” stock option bonuses.
