"Because brother, I have been there, when some would-be 'reputable' journalist who's just been severely ass-whipped by a relative no-name freelancer on an enormous story fights back by going on television and, without any evidence at all, accusing the guy who beat him of cheating. That's happened to me so often, I've come to expect it. If there's a lower form of life on the planet earth than a 'reputable' journalist protecting his territory, I haven't seen it." READ MORE

READ MORE

By now, you will have tried to read Matt Taibbi's latest, which makes the case, which in my book was already made, that there should be criminal investigations at Goldman Sachs. I say "tried" because this is rough going. (And yes: Matt Taibbi, God bless!) And he's not wrong! Many of us have accustomed ourselves over the last few years to reading about regulatory whatnots and tranchey thingamabobs, and while it'll always be an uncomfortable second nature, at least writing about financial instruments follows some rules. But it's not the finance that's hard. For one, there's sentences like this one: "Each of the deals appears to represent a different and innovative brand of shamelessness and deceit." Now, I'm sorry the legal department made you say "appears to," even though it is technically accurate that we only know for sure that there is an appearance of deceit. But the helpful analogies! READ MORE

When Rolling Stone reporter Matt Taibbi fingered Goldman Sachs as the main culprit behind the housing bubble-and most of the other commodities bubbles of the past seventy-odd years-financial journalists closed ranks to denounce every element of the case he sought to make. The story was "just plain wrong," thundered Slate's Heidi Moore. Taibbi was "the Sarah Palin of journalism," sniffed Megan McArdle, without showing any serious flaws in the piece's analysis or reasoning. CNBC contributor and Daily Beast columnist Charles Gasparino sputtered that the whole spectacle of the foul-mouthed, pugnacious Taibbi presuming to explain the Goldman-spurred '08 meltdown was "making me ill." This wasn't merely "wrong"-the financial press has spent the better part of the last decade being wrong, after all-it was, rather, that thing that no aspiring inside chronicler of Wall Street can ever afford to be: "pretty naïve." READ MORE

You know what obscures facts sometimes? Opinion-free, neutral language. True! Here is the soothing language from yesterday's Times: "Nearly a year after the federal rescue of the nation's biggest banks, taxpayers have begun seeing profits from the hundreds of billions of dollars in aid that many critics thought might never be seen again.... These early returns are by no means a full accounting of the huge financial rescue undertaken by the federal government last year to stabilize teetering banks and other companies.... But the mere hint of bailout profits for the nearly year-old Troubled Asset Relief Program has been received as a welcome surprise." So, wait, what are they saying? They're saying that the government has been repaid a small amount of the outstanding "loans." And it made a profit on that small amount. And... well, take it away, Matt Taibbi! READ MORE

Are you ready for the next round of Taibbi? The Goldman Sachs vampire squid arguments stretched out for well over a month around his last piece, which is something like 9 years in Internet time. Now he has been interviewing doctors with horror stories. (They are horrific!) So this is how they're still doing it: Rolling Stone hits newsstands now with the piece. The website posts unembeddable video of a backlit Matt Taibbi talking about the piece. Which are kind of good videos actually! But are still not the piece. Right now, in some suburban basement, someone is typing it up, and they will illegally (sort of) post it on the web, and we will all read it and feel bad that we are STEALING. Then maybe some of us will go by the magazine in shame. Also there is something slightly disjointed about Taibbi's video v. text persona? (Or, sorry, actual person.) In person, he's a big and large friendly man with lots of chest hair, and, in video, uses grandma-stern words like "ridiculous." This is as opposed to the sort of post-gonzo super-angry writing thingie. Anyway. Just thinkin' out loud here, pretty much. Kinda hot out there, right? Update: OH and also he is beginning the healthcare talk all up on his True/Slant page!

Yesterday, Matt Taibbi explicated the response he got from Goldman Sachs about his piece in Rolling Stone. (A piece that is only on newsstands, um, except in pirated versions-which, when will Rolling Stone let themselves enjoy good web traffic?) One thing Goldman definitely did was "make it clear that both I and my sources are simply not as smart as they are and don't understand what we're talking about," Taibbi writes. This is standard operating procedure when it comes to bankers-and also when it comes to financial writers, some of whom are now sniping about how Taibbi actually doesn't understand. (Undoubtedly, he probably doesn't understand it all!) READ MORE

Tom Scocca: Am I the only one who sort of wishes that nice Matt Taibbi wouldn't use all those swear words? READ MORE