3 ms·

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 Ro

• 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.