

Megan McArdle's Takedown Of Matt Taibbi's Goldman Piece - tptacek
http://meganmcardle.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/07/matt_taibbi_gets_his_sarah_pal.php

======
sweetdreams
She's getting railed on pretty heavily by her commenters.

~~~
BrentRitterbeck
I have seen this across many sites. For some reason, people view Taibbi as
some kind of saint. You can't say anything good about Goldman, or any other
Wall Street company, without being severely criticized. When you ask for
credible evidence of illegal actions, no one can point to anything. I
understand that a lot of people are going through tough times, but this
massive movement against the Street is getting ridiculous.

~~~
Ennis
"When you ask for credible evidence of illegal actions, no one can point to
anything"

This isn't true. Taibbi's article justified every claim that was made. I read
it twice because it felt more like entertainment journalism than fact the
first time through. But that is just his style. He is very personal in his
approach. I spent the entire night looking into his claims and allegations
because the article was very unexpected - I haven't heard of Goldman
conspiracies before. His claims all check out. His conclusions are just that -
his - and you are to make your own as a reader.

It's a shame he didn't reference everything in his article. But nothing was
more than a few Google searches away to verify.

So again, yes Goldman did many illegal things in it's past and it got punished
for it every time by the government. Taibbi argued that the punishment did not
dissuade the firm from further illegal activity. This is true as well. The
penalties were all mere fractions of windfall made from the crimes - for the
specific instances mentioned by Taibbi. I personally see the Government
organizations at fault there - Taibbi says they are stacked with Goldman
alumni so you be the judge of who to blame.

Megan McArdle says the same thing as you just did - in many more words.

"It's not that everything he says is wrong, but the bits that are true aren't
interesting, and the bits that are interesting aren't true."

She spent the article attacking Taibbi instead of CLEARLY pointing out which
"interesting bits aren't true." Even in the comments, she is more concerned
with attacking Taibbi.

Example:

"I don't disagree that the banks need to be taken down about eighteen pegs.
But I don't think that Taibbi's the man to do it."

I wish she would tell me why she is right instead of insisting that Taibbi is
wrong. In fact I would settle for WHY she thinks Taibbi is wrong. But we get
zilch for details.

In her words "I don't think that the message excuses incoherence on the
details."

In John Travolta's words, "Look who's talking.."

~~~
brown9-2
Her point is pretty simple really: that Taibbi claims that Goldman is the evil
wizard behind the current financial crisis and other's in the past, yet his
claims don't back this up. He writes as if they were wholly responsible for
the entire fiasco because they did some shady stuff, but he ignores that all
sorts of entities did the same and no single person or entity is solely
responsible.

