have to add my 2cents here.... "which makes it either deliberate or a poor leadership"-- it was both. I started asking about $60 million number on this board last spring because it just didn't make sense. It just felt very Reichstag fire. The painting of the financial position is immediately dire (vs. challenged/unsustainable over the long term) seemed to quickly become about justifying immediate changes to the positioning, name, etc.--- the brand-- rather making a well-reasoned argument for making those strategic changes. As I wrote about a couple months ago after the PD finally poked a hole in the $60 million financial emergency balloon (http://zipsnation.org/forums/topic/34037-explaining-the-deficit/), the real budget gap could be managed with a less than 2% annual trim to the overall budget. The media absolutely has a negative news bias-- if it bleeds it leads as the saying goes-- in large part because that is how we are hard-wired as homo sapiens. We pay much more attention to danger, threat and down-side risk than good news and upside potential. I don't think the ABJ has been on an anti-Scar jihad. In fact, they have written several pro-Scar op-eds, including one that basically repeated/validated the financial emergency storyline. Their job is to push and ask tough questions. I don't think Scar has proved to be adept at handling any of this, and the deliberate misleading of the UA community about the finances is in fact the proof-certain of the poor leadership.