This year, no reporter has generated as much buzz on Wall Street as Rolling Stone Editor Matt Taibbi. Matt tossed some molotov cocktails into an otherwise quiet financial media marketplace when he published a laundry list of the top-level culprits responsible for quaking the global credit markets and causing a tsunami throughout the world-wide economy. His follow up piece The Great American Bubble Machine has been the most controversial article in a long time. Several journalists on Wall Street took issue with the piece for three primary reasons: 1) they have relationships at Goldman Sachs who they wanted to impress for greater future access, 2) they didn’t read Matt’s prior articles (See The Big Takeover) which point fingers at many more abetters than Goldman, and 3) on the ever-present Freudian tip, they are insecure they didn’t do their job or write one of the most obviously important stories of the year (while losing said story to a guy outside the financial media sector).
Recently, Congress started investigating Goldman Sachs, and other top financial journalists including Michael Lewis have taken Matt’s side. I caught up with Matt to ask him whether he is running from Goldman like Russell Crow in The Insider, what he thinks journalists can do to better protect the People, and whether he feels vindicated against his critics now that there was obviously gold in the mud he raked.
Damien Hoffman: Matt, since we last spoke Congress has been investigating Goldman Sachs and others to see if they misbehaved. Do you feel vindicated after a sea of critics claimed your articles were hyperbolic fantasy that had no journalistic integrity?
Matt: The Senate investigation centers around the issue of whether the financial institutions had doubts about the soundness of the mortgage-related securities these banks were hawking. When my article The Great American Bubble Machine first came out, a lot of people criticized that particular element of the article. They said the allegation was “outlandish” and “unfair.” So, I’d say Congress’s investigation is definitely a partial vindication.
Damien: Do you think this is the grand purpose of a journalist — to rake mud, expose hidden truths, and follow the mission of the Fourth Estate?
Matt: I definitely think this is what journalists are supposed to do. We are supposed to raise awareness about issues that concern the public. One of the controversial things about this article [The Great American Bubble Machine] has been whether or not journalists should do what I did in my article which was make a case for the prosecution — in other words, take sides in an argument and go on the offensive. Some people believe journalists should be more even-handed and not have a more prosecutorial role.
Matt Taibbi
However, the financial press in particular has let a lot of things slide over the past eight or nine years. So, the approach I used at Rolling Stone is warranted in the end because there’s been an absence of any adversarial reporting in the Wall Street community. What we did was more appropriate than it would’ve been had the press been performing better in general over that period.
Damien: So, you have to throw a few molotov cocktails in order to wake up people from their complacency?
Matt: Normally, you’d rather have a situation where the press incrementally covered things as they happened. You don’t want to throw big hay-makers at large companies, but with the financial story we’re behind the eight ball to the degree where more desperate measures are needed.
Damien: What’s the lesson for other journalists who fear going against the herd opinion?
Matt: You ever seen the movie Predator? [Laughing] It bleeds … we can kill it. If you publish something that strikes a chord with people, you can really have an effect. I know a lot of reporters think what they do won’t make a difference. This is actually one of the first times in my career where I felt I had some kind of an effect on things.
Goldman is a very powerful company, but they were hurt by several reporters including Joe Hagan and Michael Lewis. The best example is how Goldman was affected by the Government’s warrants in the company. As part of the TARP [Troubled Asset Relief Program] deal, the Government bought warrants in Goldman Sachs and the bank was required to repurchase them. In the spring, many banks including Goldman were offering well-below market rates for those warrants. However, after a couple months of illuminating press, Goldman offered almost twice as much money for the warrants because, in my opinion, they didn’t want to be seen as cheating the Government.
So, press can have an effect. It might even push Senate Committees along. Obviously, there are a lot of other reporters on the story now, so that’s good too.
Damien: When you take a stand against a powerful company or entity, and your press may be costing your subject big bucks, do you feel like Russell Crowe in the movie The Insider where he is constantly intimidated?
Matt: Actually, I’ve been surprised by the mildness and lameness of the response. A lot of journalists may imagine that if they go up against a powerful company there will be very serious consequences. But Goldman’s response was completely amateurish and transparent from a public relations perspective. They simply issued a bunch of press releases and relied upon some of their buddies in the media to publish counter-attacks against people like me and Joe Hagan. Now, that might be because I don’t work in the financial press so they don’t have the ability to reach out to my superiors the way they might have if I worked for the Wall Street Journal.
If people are intimidated by these companies, they shouldn’t be. While they are very powerful if you’re a politician, I don’t think there’s a whole lot they can do to a journalist.
Damien: So, you haven’t gotten any letters on your car saying, “Better watch who you f*ck with!” or something like that?
Matt: [Laughing] I’ve gotten hate mail and some funny phone calls, but nothing threatening to me or anyone close to me. I do know people that have been threatened by other financial institutions. But that has been for something where somebody was about to go to the authorities with a very serious issue.
It would be very stupid of any company to do something like that. This isn’t a Third-World country where you can break someone’s kneecaps and expect a positive public relations bounce from that.
Damien: Matt, what advice do you have for those who aspire to win this award next year?
Matt: As someone who covered politics for several years and then moved into finance, I think this is a very fertile ground for journalism. There is a lot here to go through. We need more outsiders looking at this insular world because the people who have been covering it have been there so long, they don’t see the forest from the trees anymore.
So, for anyone who wants to get a good story, Wall Street is definitely the place to go right now. There is simply a lot of disgusting behavior that needs to be examined by journalists, and I hope a lot more people look into it.
Damien: Matt, thank you very much for taking the time to chat with me. I know you are on deadline for your big article covering healthcare which is due out this week. Keep up the great work!
Matt: Damien, thank you very much for this award. I’m very honored and appreciative.
If you would like to nominate a person or media outlet for a First Amendment Award for Outstanding Journalism, please click here.
If you are interested in real-time market analysis, click here to follow Wall St. Cheat Sheet on Twitter.
Check out the other First Amendment Award winners:
First Amendment Award for Outstanding Journalism: Best Book Bailout Nation
First Amendment Award for Outstanding Journalism: Best Blog Zero Hedge
{ Read More Wall St. Cheat Sheet }
Loading ...
Thanks for this interview Mr. Hoffman. Much appreciation, and for Mr. Taibbi’s efforts too.
Our pleasure. We have received a ton of emails about staying on course with the awards and enlightening reporting.
Many Kudos to Matt!
- For his journalism and research, and for his bravery!
If you do a google search on Matt Taibbi and his father you will find various antisemitic references in some of the articles, especially the slant on Goldman Sachs. (I am no fan of Goldman Sachs either)
If you do a google search on our last two presidents you can find plenty more absurd accusations. There are plenty of people who have a reason to hate Matt for shining the light in their smoky back rooms. I’m sure he will encounter many more ad hominem attacks and smear campaigns. What you found is absurd. I know for a fact Matt has Jewish friends.
LINKS TO ARTICLES THAT WERE PLAGIARIZED (GOLDMAN SACHS PIECES ARE IN BRACKETS).
“Playing Monopoly in Charm City,” (Dissident Voice, June 10, 2005)
“Hanky Panky At the Counting House,” Dissident Voice, June 6, 2006 (GOLDMAN)
“Was the IMF Involved in Gold Price Manipulation?” Dissident Voice, June 8, 2006 (GOLDMAN)
“Why It’s Time to Sell Goldman,” Money Week, July 3, 2006 (GOLDMAN)
“Fairy Tales from Grimm that Just Got Grimmer,” Dissident Voice, April 2007
“Bunk: the Art of Writing without Thinking, or Malcolm Gladwell Checks In at the Hotel Kenneth Lay-A”), Dissident Voice, April 3, 2007 (GOLDMAN AND ENRON)
“The Paulson Pu(t)sch,” Lew Rockwell, September 25, 2008 (GOLDMAN)
“Three-Card Capitalists,” Lew Rockwell, October 1, 2008 (GOLDMAN)
“Who Will Insure the Insurers?” Dissident Voice, October 2, 2008 (GOLDMAN)
“The New China Lobby,” Dissident Voice, October 4, 2008 (GOLDMAN)
“If Only Paul Krugman Were a Moron,” Lew Rockwell, March 7, 2009 (BANKS)
“Nightmare on Wall Street, Lew Rockwell, April 1, 2009 (GOLDMAN AND AIG AND OTHER BANKS)
“Bob Zoellick’s A Two-Bit Bore,” Dissident Voice, April 3, 2009 (GOLDMAN)
“Natural Pandemic or Man-made Pandemonium,” Lew Rockwell, September, 2009) (CAP AND TRADE)
I called out Nouriel Roubini’s insider status early in 2009
Other pieces that tipped off the MSM before anyone else, and were plagiarized without attribution:
“Iraqi Women and Torture – Parts I – IV, Dissident Voice, July-August, 2005 (TORTURE OF WOMEN IN IRAQ – DIRECTLY PLAGIARIZED)
“More Gun Laws Or Fewer Idiots,” (Counterpunch, April 18, 2007)
“V Tech Whitewash” (Lew Rockwell, May 15, 2007) Comment by Lila Rajiva on December 26, 2009 at 2:10pm
Hi Graham, thanks for spotting the Goldman Sachs pieces.
Here are other pieces. Check through them and you will find that I got the whole story well before Taibbi who I have every reason to believe lifted them from me.
“Playing Monopoly in Charm City,” (Dissident Voice, June 10, 2005) called the top of the housing bubble in June 2005 and warned of a housing collapse.
“More Gun Laws Or Fewer Idiots,” (Counterpunch, April 18, 2007), “V Tech Whitewash” (Lew Rockwell, May 15, 2007) and other pieces and blog posts on the Virginia Tech slaughter were the first to show that there was a serious failure of the University administration involved. I showed that officials were culpable in the matter. They were, and money was claimed by the victims.
On the Financial Crisis:
“Why It’s Time to Sell Goldman,” Money Week, July 2006, and others in Dissident Voice on the corruption at Goldman Sachs were published in April- July 2006, a full two years ahead of the mainstream media coverage of it.
It described Goldman’s fraudulent practices, from laddering to spinning and abusive derivatives, as well as its infiltration of the government and its Rolodex of alumni in the capital markets. Matt Taibbi’s Rolling Stone pieces are clearly taken from this and the following articles: “Bunk: The Art of Writing Without Thinking”/”Malcolm Gladwell and Lay-Away Thinking,” “Lipstick on An AIG,” “The Paulson Putsch,” “Three Card Capitalists,” and several other shorter pieces and posts you can find on this site.
“Malcolm Gladwell Checks In at the Hotel Kenneth Lay-A,” Dissident Voice, April 1, 2007 (Also published as Bunk: The Art of Writing Without Thinking”)
“Putting Lipstick on an AIG,” Lew Rockwell, September 19, 2008 spotting a corrupt tie between AIG and Goldman, and was published a week ahead of Naked Capitalism blog, and more than a week before the New York Times (both of whom I am certain used the leads in it). The piece described how Goldman Sachs had prettified Fannie and Freddie’s books, and had also acted with serious conflicts of interest over AIG.
(I’m not comparing my connect-the-dots journalism with investigative work: they are two different things. However, it does show how irrelevant most investigative journalism is, and how much it can be used to reinforce rather than subvert the official narrative of the state. To my mind, commentary and predictive analysis have contributed as much or more to understanding the crisis than the usual “smoking gun” style of reporting, which does little more than add footnotes to the analysis).
I warned of a serious market crash as early as March 2007 (“Fairy Tales from Grimm that Just Got Grimmer,” Dissident Voice, 2007
A piece on Malcolm Gladwell in April 2007 warned that something catastrophic was in the works for the capital markets. It describes Goldman Sachs’s involvement with Enron and with oil derivatives.
(“Bunk: the Art of Writing without Thinking, or Malcolm Gladwell Checks In at the Hotel Kenneth Lay-A”)
“The Paulson Pu(t)sch,” Lew Rockwell, September 25, 2008 (the title seems to have been changed on Lew Rockwell) was the first article to systematically question Goldman Sachs’ role in the banking crisis and Hank Paulson’s credibility.
The piece analyzed the crisis correctly as interbank cannibalism and a financial terrorist attack on the capital markets, and pointed out the role of Paulson and other Goldman Sachs alumni in undermining regulations on reserves and on the uptick rule, analysis borne out subsequently.
Please check this and other pieces against Matt Taibbi’s work in Rolling Stone and you will see considerable evidence of plagiarism.
“Three-Card Capitalists,” Lew Rockwell, October 1, 2008 was one of the earliest articles to point out the flaws of the Financial Stabilization Bill (there were a lot of people quick to jump on this, so I don’t take credit for being more than quick off the mark).
The piece also gives further evidence of Goldman Sachs’ extensive corruption, both in recent history and as far back as the Great Depression (also lifted by Matt Taibbi).
I am one of the only bloggers to have pointed out that the Swedish model for nationalization is not what its proponents say it is.
“If Only Paul Krugman Were a Moron,” Lew Rockwell, March 7, 2009
“Who Will Insure the Insurers?” Dissident Voice, October 2, 2008
“The New China Lobby,” Dissident Voice, October 4, 2008
“Bob Zoellick’s A Two-Bit Bore,” Dissident Voice, April 3, 2009
You can check out these articles and more on this site under the relevant tabs.
You can also check the archives to see that I was accurate, far in advance of the MSM and most of the blogosphere, on many other topics, including:
1. JP Morgan’s so-called rescue of Washington Mutual, the details of which have come out recently, and which I got essentially correct back in 2008 October
2. Climate change and cap-and-trade, which I called out in September 2008, as a boondoggle related to Goldman’s projected global regime. In a piece on swine flu (“Natural Pandemic or Man-made Pandemonium,” Lew Rockwell, September, 2009) I also called out the swine-flu scare and showed how it was related to the globalist climate-change agenda
3. I called out Nouriel Roubini’s insider status before anyone. It was shown later that Roubini was in business with Summers.
4. I have compiled my own evidence of substantial manipulation of wikipedia. This was substantiated by the recent manipulation of the wikipedia article on climate-change (archive for November-December 2009).
4. I have personal evidence of the manipulation practiced by the liberal-left print media, gathered from my own difficulties over publishing, plagiarism, intellectual theft, distortion, and covert censorship.
ARTICLES
“Iraqi Women and Torture – Parts I – IV, which showed torture to be part of a consistent US policy, ran in Dissident Voice in July-August 2004, two years before similar pieces at The Nation. Compare those pieces and I think you can detect the influence. The leads were taken and used by a senior editor at American Prospect who had been in extensive contact with me and did not give me a citation or acknowledgment, a serious ethical and professional lapse for which she never apologized.
Since then, I have found this to be so pervasive in the English language media as to be almost standard practice. This is not a petty matter, as some people think, but deeply woven into the propaganda role the media plays. Its ultimate effect is to reinforce establishment and imperial narratives and to curtail the voice of alternative journalists and less powerful players.
My depressing conclusion after years of media watching is that the media, especially the US mainstream media, must take a large part of the blame for the ongoing global economic crisis