The problem with shoddy journalism is that even when it's right, it can do a disservice by providing a vulnerable story for wrongdoers to poke holes in. Your comment is a non sequitur, assuming as it does that someone who thinks financial journalism is frequently inaccurate must believe whatever financial firms say instead.
My intent was to take issue with the OP's assertion that the majority of what is printed is an outright fabrication. Even when journalists get some details wrong, or quote a source who may be misinformed or lying, the broad strokes are often the most important aspect of a story.
Additionally, the tidbit about OP having worked for two high-profile companies is completely useless information. Just because you get a paycheck doesn't mean you are privy to inside details related to why or how things happen.
So yes, the article in question isn't necessarily perfect, but making wild, unsupported claims about fabricated stories is no better.
