
Gillian Tett, the US managing editor of the London-based Financial Times, is “sharp” and “glamorous,” according to a 2010 profile by The Daily Beast. She may even be “the most powerful woman in newspapers,” the Beast said, as the FT “intends to become a status symbol of American business.” Tett is also a star on the Wall Street speaking circuit, a fact not mentioned in that profile. Testimonials from satisfied customers can be found on the website of Leigh Bureau, the speakers’ agency that books many of her talks. “Tett really wowed them, she talked about the present and the future of the markets,” according to an unnamed “federal mortgage company” that hired her. “We were very pleased with the forward-looking focus of Gillian’s topic, as many of the guests who were attending were clients of ours concerned with the next steps for their investments,” according to an “investment and asset management firm.”
Asked about her engagements, Tett told me she receives up to $20,000 a speech. A cut goes to the Leigh Bureau, and travel, lodging, and related expenses are paid by the customer. On occasion, Tett ventures outside the US, as in a speech last year to Unigestion, a Swiss asset manager. As for the money that comes to her from speaking—“well into the six figures,” she calculates-—she says she donates it, “for the most part,” to charity, specifically to a project for disadvantaged youngsters in the British city of Liverpool.
Tett has plenty of company. Many journalists give paid speeches to businesses and business groups. And Wall Street, as it happens, is probably the top source of such engagements. Household names like Bank of America as well as obscure hedge funds, private-equity firms, and others in the financial world frequently hire journalists—including scribes who regularly cover Wall Street—to deliver speeches at events ranging from publicized conferences to small private dinners with select clients. Millions of dollars have flowed to journalists in speaking fees in recent years.
Is this a scandal, a dark and an indelible stain on journalism, or really not such a big deal? What does Wall Street, which is all about the bottom line, after all, get from such engagements? Is this a matter of journalism ethics? Not surprisingly, what may at first seem a simple judgment call turns out to be a bit more complicated.
Even though the practice of journalists speaking for money is not a new one, these questions are especially ripe for exploration because of the enormous importance of Wall Street as a political and economic story for the press. The US economy is still suffering from the 2008 financial crisis, and Wall Street, saved by a controversial federal bailout of some $1 trillion, is emerging as a core issue in the 2012 presidential campaign—especially with the prospect that the Republican nominee will be Mitt Romney, a former private-equity baron.
The public needs to trust the press to get the story straight, all the more so because of pervasive distrust of Wall Street itself. According to a CNN/ORC International poll of Americans released in October, “two-thirds say Wall Street bankers are dishonest, a number that has gone up by a third in roughly two decades.” The Occupy Wall Street national protest movement attests to the suspicions.
In this toxic climate, many financial journalists are on edge, worried that any misstep could make them the target of criticism for being too cozy with Wall Street. Back in October, New York Times op-ed columnist Joe Nocera, who often writes about finance, was taken to task by media critic Erik Wemple of The Washington Post for speaking at a securities conference in Miami sponsored by Wall Street firms including Goldman Sachs, J. P. Morgan, and Morgan Stanley. The gig appeared to breach the paper’s own rule for not permitting staff journalists to take speaking fees from any for-profit sources. Nocera “declined to address the speaking fee,” Wemple wrote, and he also declined to talk to me.
But while some news organizations don’t permit their staffers to take speaking fees from any sources, including Wall Street, there is still plenty of action out there.

The idea that anyone would pay Ferguson, the USA-is-on-the-rise/wait-no, we're-an-empire-in-decline hack any money at all to declaim his daft and ever-shifting Big Thoughts, is itself kind of the scandal.
Then again, hedgie numbskulls who think a proper British accent=intelligence probably deserve to have their collective eyes ripped out this way.
But wasn't this supposed to be a story about journalists?
#1 Posted by Edward Ericson Jr., CJR on Mon 19 Mar 2012 at 01:59 PM
Sorry, but this seems like journalism ethics 101. Speaking for fees to industry groups you cover is unethical. Gretchen Morgenson has got it right -- she'll accept paid speaking gigs at universities but if she speaks to vetted industry groups, she does it for free. End of story. I thought we already went through this back in the 1990s when the Chicago Tribune's Jim Warren smoked out and shamed prominent journalists doing paid speaking gigs. How soon we forget. Kudos to Robert Thomson of the WS Journal and to CNBC for flatly barring their reporters from doing paid speeches.
#2 Posted by Harris Meyer, CJR on Tue 20 Mar 2012 at 08:30 PM
Er... this all seems a bit po-faced to me - what about all the lunches, dinners, sporting events, even concerts that journos regularly attend in order to "build relationships" with execs from all industries?
#3 Posted by Brian, CJR on Wed 21 Mar 2012 at 01:35 AM
There's a world of difference, Brian. As a journalist, I attend panels, business dinners, cymposiums and other events where there is a lot of fancy food and other comforts. I do it as a part of my work to see the interactions and get more context for the information I get. I can easily go without this kind of 'reward' and, in fact, often resent it and would much rather just do interviews in a cafe or on the phone.
It's a -very- different level of commitment if I'm getting real cash on a regular basis for services. For one thing, suddenly my car, the payments on my new apartment and other solid things now depend on this person/company being happy with me and not closing the money tap. Also, after such an engagement you are linked with you customer in a very business-like way: you have become a partner, not a watcher.
#4 Posted by Brazilian Rascal, CJR on Wed 21 Mar 2012 at 10:43 AM
IT was OBVIOUS that she was a shill for Wall Street!!!!!!!! NO DOUBT!!!
Glamorous...NOT ..at ALL?!?!?
I hated her lisp!
#5 Posted by Pat, CJR on Thu 22 Mar 2012 at 09:11 AM
This explains some of the happy talk in the news media. Corporate ownership of the same media explains the rest. Prominent rewards to individual media content creators makes it easy for all concerned to 'go along, get along'.
The outcome is an America corrupt as an Ottoman satrapy.
#6 Posted by steve from virginia, CJR on Thu 22 Mar 2012 at 11:28 AM
gee - imagine a women having the cheek to do what men having been doing forever & i mean forever....
#7 Posted by susie m, CJR on Sun 25 Mar 2012 at 10:54 PM
Re: Gillian Tett's book Fool's Gold "skewered the financial industry"
Hardly. I found it to be a hagiography of JPMorgan.
#8 Posted by Knute, CJR on Sat 9 Jun 2012 at 12:18 AM
This article is interesting but doesn't go far enough.
Tett and the entire FT, as much of the financial press in London and New York, have been more than friendly to the financial-industry types who pay their speakers fees, buy their ads, give them scoops, write their big-name guest essays, make them feel important.
Tett and many of the other people in the article have editorialized again and again for maximum bailouts and bazookas (still doing it re the euro), ventriloquising their hedgie and other Wall Street friends who love nothing better than to offload their bad paper and get a good ride on asset price inflation. Of course the FT speaks for the City. Duh.
#9 Posted by scott, CJR on Sun 12 Aug 2012 at 04:39 PM