4 ms·

Well, former US Attorney General Eric Holder took back his old job at the white collar law firm that represents these guys. Here's the money quote: "Holder wil

Well, former US Attorney General Eric Holder took back his old job at the white collar law firm that represents these guys. Here's the money quote: "Holder will reassume his lucrative partnership (he made $2.5 million the last year he worked there) and take his seat in an office that reportedly – this is no joke – was kept empty for him in his absence." Ref: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/eric-holder-wall-street-double-agent-comes-in-from-the-cold-20150708 http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/eric-holder-wall-s...

rcarrigan87 11y ago
I'm not debating Eric Holder going back to his old gig isn't fishy, it certainly is. And the revolving door bt Wall Street and Washington is ridiculous. But RollingStone has the most slanted, sensational coverage on anything Wall Street. Their accounts aren't journalism.
- shawn-furyan 11y ago
  By Rolling Stone, you mean Matt Taibbi. Because he's the only reason Rolling Stone covers Wallstreet at all. I'm not a fan of Taibbi's style, and I think that he jumps to biased conclusions. But I've read just about everything I've come across regarding the Financial crisis, and Taibbi has contributed substantial and important reporting to fill out the context of what exactly went down. To me, Taibbi is a pretty good source for facts, since he wears his biases so openly on his sleeves, it is trivial to account for when he does reach. He also has a completely different perspective and motivational drive than the Financial press beat reporters who are afraid to stray too far from the self-serving accepted wisdom that's developed in the financial industry, as well as the broad audience reporters who are mostly afraid to dive into the minutia. Taibbi is highly idiosyncratic, but his perspective is valuable as long as you're taking in a spectrum of views and have an ability to bring a sense of skepticism to reported claims.
  - twoodfin 11y ago
    I appreciate this comment, but it seems a little like saying that William Randolph Hearst had a "completely different perspective and motivational drive" when investigating the sinking of the USS Maine. I'm not sure that kind of 'reporting' is a net positive.
- zipwitch 11y ago
  No. Rolling Stone's coverage of Wall Street isn't slanted, it's honest. That's why it makes Wall Street look so bad.
PhantomGremlin 11y ago
There's a lot I didn't like about Holder. But, compared to some predecessors, he's closer to being a saint than a sinner. It's all relative. :) E.g. here's one of the worst offenders, only 40 years ago: On February 21, 1975, Mitchell ... was found guilty of conspiracy, obstruction of justice, and perjury and sentenced to two and a half to eight years in prison for his role in the Watergate break-in and cover-up https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_N._Mitchell https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_N._Mitchell

rcarrigan87 11y ago

I'm not debating Eric Holder going back to his old gig isn't fishy, it certainly is. And the revolving door bt Wall Street and Washington is ridiculous. But RollingStone has the most slanted, sensational coverage on anything Wall Street. Their accounts aren't journalism.

shawn-furyan 11y ago
By Rolling Stone, you mean Matt Taibbi. Because he's the only reason Rolling Stone covers Wallstreet at all. I'm not a fan of Taibbi's style, and I think that he jumps to biased conclusions. But I've read just about everything I've come across regarding the Financial crisis, and Taibbi has contributed substantial and important reporting to fill out the context of what exactly went down. To me, Taibbi is a pretty good source for facts, since he wears his biases so openly on his sleeves, it is trivial to account for when he does reach. He also has a completely different perspective and motivational drive than the Financial press beat reporters who are afraid to stray too far from the self-serving accepted wisdom that's developed in the financial industry, as well as the broad audience reporters who are mostly afraid to dive into the minutia. Taibbi is highly idiosyncratic, but his perspective is valuable as long as you're taking in a spectrum of views and have an ability to bring a sense of skepticism to reported claims.
- twoodfin 11y ago
  I appreciate this comment, but it seems a little like saying that William Randolph Hearst had a "completely different perspective and motivational drive" when investigating the sinking of the USS Maine. I'm not sure that kind of 'reporting' is a net positive.
zipwitch 11y ago
No. Rolling Stone's coverage of Wall Street isn't slanted, it's honest. That's why it makes Wall Street look so bad.

PhantomGremlin 11y ago

There's a lot I didn't like about Holder. But, compared to some predecessors, he's closer to being a saint than a sinner. It's all relative. :) E.g. here's one of the worst offenders, only 40 years ago: On February 21, 1975, Mitchell ... was found guilty of conspiracy, obstruction of justice, and perjury and sentenced to two and a half to eight years in prison for his role in the Watergate break-in and cover-up https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_N._Mitchell https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_N._Mitchell