I think Felix Salmon at Reuters sums Taibbi up nicely: "you don’t read a Taibbi rant for an evenhanded look at both sides of a complex story. It’s more a forcefully-put case for the prosecution: some of his charges might not stick, but he’ll throw a few chancers in as well for good measure".
To that I'd only add that Taibbi seems deeply incurious. Other journalists will attempt to explain the motivations and mechanics behind a particular trade or instrument. Taibbi will respond, "I talked to some of the principals in this story and there's no way you can come to any conclusion other than that this a giant fraud". Which may be right as far as it goes, but it doesn't help you understand what's actually happening.
I think people like us are trained to be very wary of anyone attempting to conceal facts, even if they're right. We can think for ourselves.
So many excellent people have done real legwork (defined partially as "hurting their brains to understand things like how a trust holding 250MM of mortgages is tranched and why a hedge fund wants one of those tranches and a bank another"), it seems a shame that everyone's paying attention to the journalist who's really just got a talent for telling people what they want to hear.
Even if that's what you really want, Michael Lewis does a better job of it. For that matter, you really ought to read _Liar's Poker_ if you haven't already. Some of the acronyms have changed, but the underlying game is the same.
For the record, I appreciate and enjoy Taibbi's writing on politics.
I haven't read it, and as you can see I have an axe to grind about him. If it's a collection of his RS articles, then I'd say not to bother. I'm a legal nerd, and I just find his coverage way too factually selective for my taste: I'd be afraid to quote him on any topic other than as a reflection of the fact that people are angry, because I worry that I would get called on for having the facts wrong. Every time I have ever dug into the facts behind a Matt Taibbi story I have felt shortchanged at best, lied to at worst. Your mileage may vary.
I do like Michael Lewis's writing - it's not perfect either, but he's good at presenting complex facts and tries to approach his material from a neutral standpoint. I have not yet read 'Reckless Endangerment' by Gretchen Morganstern and Joshua Rosner, but there seems to be an emerging concensus about it being the best serious book on the subject for a general audience.
