There is a lengthy takedown of critics of Goldman Sachs critic and Rolling Stone screed writer Matt Taibbi in the current Columbia Journalism Review. (Get all that?) The gist: Writer Dean Starkman thinks that too many business journalists are inappropriately supportive of Goldman Sachs, and wrongly sniping at Taibbi, who, Starkman contends, isn’t merely some financial naif who showed up late and enthusiastic at the “Goldman Sachs is evil and wrongly rules the world” story, but is a financial naif who showed up late and enthusiastic at the “Goldman Sachs is evil and wrong rules the world” story and mostly had his facts right.
Fair enough, I suppose. But I’m soon going to need a program to keep track of who is scoring points off whom in all of this. Can’t wee all just agree that Goldman has way too much influence for a firm happy to trade around that influence and leave it at that? No?