That said, I trust the article. What does the article say, however? Basically, it comes down on Imus for being sloppy, unknowledgeable about running a charity, and for having a board of himself, his wife and their two personal accountants. Tax errors, sloppy accounting work, and his penchant for hyping himself weave their way through the article.
My final opinion is that the article was geared more to readers who engage in charity work, showing them what can happen to a sloppily run, high-profile charity.
"A reporter doesn't get his article on the WSJ front page left column without having his every last duck in a row."
Why then does the news section of the WSJ have such a notorious left leaning reputation (in contrast to its editorial page)? Apparently, this reporter was invited to visit the Imus ranch and Imus even offered to pay his way. He refused.
If this is "getting your ducks in a row," I'll stick to cattle ranching!