A few weeks ago, I saw Andrew Ross Sorkin’s appearance on Real Time with Bill Maher. At one point during the discussion, Sorkin asserted that the financial crisis of 2008 did not result from the violation of any laws. I immediately screamed “Tool!” at the teevee. Worse yet, because Sorkin is not an attorney, his legal opinions are not worth the electrons used to convey them.
Since that time, ARS has continued with his bankster exoneration crusade. In the process, he has drawn criticism from such authorities as William Black.
On May 24, Robert Scheer of Truthdig posted a review of the HBO movie-adaptation of Sorkin’s book, Too Big To Fail. Scheer’s review demonstrated how “access journalism” often creates fawning sycophants. Scheer closed the piece with this thought:
Perhaps the main value of the book and film is the instruction they provide on the limits of mainstream journalism in the decade that led up to the meltdown. Sorkin, who rose to be a business editor at the Times, covered Wall Street deal-making in exquisite detail, relying on an access journalism that has often proved deeply flawed in traditional business news coverage. What was largely ignored as it was unfolding was the story of the unbridled power of Wall Street financiers over the political process that caused this tragedy for so many tens of millions who have lost jobs and homes.
On June 6, Sorkin wrote a piece for his Dealbook blog in defense of Goldman Sachs. The essay seemed to be particularly focused on the vulnerability of Goldman CEO, Lloyd Blankfein, to perjury charges resulting from his testimony before the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, chaired by Senator Carl Levin. Sorkin concluded that the evidence was “far from convincing” that Blankfein lied when he testified that Goldman “didn’t have a massive short” position against the housing market.
It’s difficult to avoid turning up on Matt Taibbi’s radar when one is carrying water for Goldman Sachs. Taibbi immediately set about debunking Sorkin’s Goldman piece on June 7. Taibbi did a thorough job of making it clear that Blankfien lied, using a similar analysis to what I expressed on May 19. While focusing on Sorkin’s perspective, Taibbi made an especially strong point, reminiscent of the debate which has arisen concerning the ethics of economists in the aftermath of the film, Inside Job. Economists who publish “academic studies” on a subject don’t usually feel obligated to disclose that they are on the payrolls of companies who could benefit from that that type of support. It appears as though Sorkin may be suffering from a similar affliction. Consider this point from the beginning of Taibbi’s retort to Sorkin’s June 6 defense of Goldman:
The Sorkin piece reads like it was written by the bank’s marketing department, which may not be an accident. In November of last year, the New York Times announced that “Dealbook” was entering into a sponsorship agreement with a variety of companies, including … Goldman, Sachs. This is from that announcement last year:
DealBook will also feature news and insights on deal-related topics from Business Day’s well-known roster of leading business reporters, which includes recent hires in addition to a veteran stable of Wall Street’s most highly-regarded journalists.
Barclays Capital, Goldman Sachs, Sotheby’s and Tata Consultancy Services are charter advertisers for the relaunch of DealBook.
“This is the next step in the evolution of DealBook, providing a community of highly-engaged readers and busy executives with essential news and insights, and keeping them plugged in to the most important news of the day,” said Andrew Ross Sorkin, DealBook editor.
Even last year I thought it was a terrible decision by the Times to take money from Goldman in the wake of an unprecedented period of financial corruption – especially to sponsor, of all things, business reporting.
But now? This looks like a joke. In Russia in the Yeltsin years, reporters had a term for selling editorial print content to mobsters. They called it “selling jeans,” a play on the old Soviet-era black-marketeer practice of trading rabbit hats to tourists for their Levi’s. This Sorkin piece has the unmistakable look of a brand-new set of 501s to me. Pieces like this undermine the great work that reporters like Gretchen Morgenson have done in the paper in recent years.
Once again, Matt Taibbi has used his unique style to keep the spotlight on the malefaction which caused the financial crisis and the subsequent wrongdoing, as well as the failure of the mainstream media to give a damn about any of it.