From: Joseph Esposito <[log in to unmask]> Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2015 22:11:06 -0500 I don't want to defend Pearson, but surely that article in Politico could have been fact-checked. A good place to begin would have been by using Pearson's own Financial Times or its half-interest in the Economist. Such an investigation would have revealed that Pearson is not the owner of Penguin Random House (that must have come as a shock to Bertelsmann) and that the statement of how Pearson really got going in the U.S. is simply wrong, as the acquisition of the U.S.'s largest and most profitable textbook publisher, Prentice-Hall, was already completed. I am sure there are a bunch of bad guys at Pearson. But what is Politico's defense? Joe Esposito On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 9:02 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > From: Bernie Reilly <[log in to unmask]> > Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 01:35:16 +0000 > > The in-depth report on the British publishing giant Pearson in today’s > Politico (“No profit left behind”) > > http://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/pearson-education-115026.html?hp=r1_4 > > is a timely sequel to a recent New Yorker piece on Jeb Bush’s links to > the for-profit education industry. One Pearson executive recently > claimed that Pearson is the largest aggregator of student information. > > Bernie Reilly > CRL