As of July 16, 2010, the end of this story has been updated with new information about Paul Bishop’s wrongful termination hearing.
In March 2008, Herb and Marion Sandler sat down with Joe Nocera of The New York Times to explain the creation of ProPublica, an investigative journalism startup launched with $10 million of their money and the promise of more. Journalists weren’t doing enough investigative work that mattered, they felt; work with moral force.
The Sandlers are in their late seventies, billionaires who built an Oakland, California, bank, Golden West Financial Corporation, into a respected institution with 285 branches operating under the name World Savings Bank. Over the years they earned a reputation for criticizing the banking industry’s risky and predatory practices. And when they sold Golden West to Wachovia Corporation in 2006, they took the better part of $2.4 billion and embraced a muscular brand of philanthropy full-time. Supporting serious journalism, they believed, was in keeping with their support for organizations like Oceana, Human Rights Watch, and The Center for Responsible Lending. The journalism would highlight, and maybe rectify, injustice. “It starts with outrage,” Herb Sandler told Nocera. “You go a little crazy when power takes advantage of those without power.”
Two years after ProPublica’s launch, the Sandlers seem happy with the freestanding newsroom. Under Paul Steiger, a former editor of The Wall Street Journal, it has collaborated with some top news outlets and brought researched exposés to an array of smaller ones. Its work has spurred an overhaul of California’s nurse-disciplinary system, heightened the sense of the risk that natural gas hydrofracking poses to America’s water supply (which won a Polk Award), and raised red flags over the dire straits of unemployment insurance funds nationwide.
The Sandlers’ relationship with the rest of journalism has not fared as well. After decades of depictions of the couple as meticulous lenders, consumer advocates, and a lovable husband-and-wife team, the Sandlers’ reputation was recast during the financial crisis. In the 1980s, their bank popularized the “Pick-a-Pay” loan, a subtype of the option adjustable-rate mortgage (option ARM) that would later be blamed for some of the housing boom’s excesses—largely because they allowed borrowers to temporarily make payments that do not cover even the interest on the loan, meaning later payments must rise sharply. Worse, the Sandlers were accused of lowering their underwriting standards to juice loan volume, then pocketing billions by foisting the toxic mess on Wachovia—an acquisition that poisoned America’s fourth-largest bank.
In The New York Times, the Sandlers’ option ARM loans were the “Typhoid Mary” of the housing crisis. 60 Minutes featured a whistleblower who accused them of “sitting on an Enron.” To cap it all off, Time included the Sandlers on its list of “People to Blame for the Financial Crisis” at number twelve, right after Lehman Brothers’ Dick Fuld.
The case against the Sandlers appeared cut and dried. It was already a truism that other purveyors of option ARMs had been predatory and reckless; the Sandlers’ Golden West wasn’t being tarred with anything that hadn’t been said of Angelo Mozilo’s Countrywide Financial or Kerry Killinger’s Washington Mutual. Nor was there any doubt that a little over two years after the Sandlers sold their portfolio, Wachovia faced billions of dollars in Pick-a-Pay losses. The Sandlers’ record of support for consumer protections, when noticed at all, was recalled with dark irony.
The couple bitterly protested the stories and by early 2009 began demanding corrections, aided by an attorney. In the case of the Times, the article about them was eventually appended with four corrections—ranging from the removal of the word “pariah” from the headline to a half-point interest-rate error. But the Sandlers wanted more, from the Times and others. And they had a point.
The Sandlers’ Golden West was neck deep in some of the housing market’s most overheated regions. They fought to hold market share, maintaining an uneasy relationship with the increasingly dominant independent mortgage brokerage industry, a constituency Herb Sandler deemed “whores.” And when the crash finally came, the Sandlers were retired and gone, though the portfolio they created and Wachovia expanded suffered terrible losses.

Really? Pro Publica and the Tiomes spent $400,000 on the New Orleans piece? Are you sure of all those zeroes?
#1 Posted by phil from philly, CJR on Thu 18 Mar 2010 at 01:01 PM
@phil,
Here's a back-of-the-envelope breakdown:
http://motherjones.com/mojo/2009/08/cost-nyt-magazine-nola-story-broken-down
#2 Posted by greg marx, CJR on Thu 18 Mar 2010 at 05:38 PM
Funny, when Scientology buys reporters, the media think it's a bad thing. When the Sandlers did it, suddenly CJR is in their corner.
That said, they are funding a journalism nonprofit and good for them. That doesn't put them beyond reproach. And what is the deal with "work with moral force?" What BS. Call it what it is, liberal. Say it again, liberal.
This is from ProPublica's OWN site:
"The Sandler Foundation’s mission is to be a catalyst to strengthen the progressive infrastructure, expose corruption and abuse, advocate for vulnerable and exploited people and environments, and advance scientific research in neglected areas."
Progressive is even leftier than liberal, but I'd be satisfied with using one of those terms prominently, not some marketing bull.
#3 Posted by Dan Gainor, CJR on Fri 19 Mar 2010 at 11:37 AM
Sounds like the Sandlers are getting kid glove treatment. Can't imagine the Times or 60 Minutes would give them even the courtesy of a call back if they were conservatives requesting a correction.
#4 Posted by frank, CJR on Fri 19 Mar 2010 at 01:00 PM
The real story here is what an undiluted waste of money the $400K sloshed by ProPublica into Fink's rehash of a non-story in New Orleans. A story about care deilvery in circumstances not seen in the US for decades and unlikely to be seen again--that impacted very very few people (whether or not their deaths were hurried along)
Could ProPublica really not think of any other major investigative health care story to pursue? Like one that impacts millions of people? They could have asked me for a few suggestions...
#5 Posted by Matthew Holt, CJR on Fri 19 Mar 2010 at 07:37 PM
The real story here is what an undiluted waste of money the $400K was sloshed by ProPublica into Fink's rehash of a non-story in New Orleans. A story about care deilvery in circumstances not seen in the US for decades and unlikely to be seen again--that impacted very very few people (whether or not their deaths were hurried along)
Could ProPublica really not think of any other major investigative health care story to pursue? Like one that impacts millions of people? They could have asked me for a few suggestions...
#6 Posted by Matthew Holt, CJR on Fri 19 Mar 2010 at 07:39 PM
The skillful and detailed defense of the Sandlers by Horwitz makes a strong case against their demonization by the news media and 'Saturday Night Live'. And you know what? A detailed investigation of quite a lot of capitalists demonized by large news and entertainment outfits would paint a more complex picture of their activities. Similarly, a detailed investigation of the supposed problems with the Toyota, as compared to other potential risks in life, is going to have to deal with the fact that driving a Toyota is not exactly among the more life-threatening activities around, and is also going to suggest that many drivers have actually hit the wrong pedal when attempting to brake. After being burned years ago on a similar story about the Audi, and in the notorious 'Dateline' SUV rollover scare, you would think the mainstream media would have learned, but . . .
Herb Sandler (who is 'partial to stories about the issue of money in politics' - as if politics isn't all about money), as a rich liberal, has access to the chattering classes that your average hedge-fund broker in Florida does not, for the purpose of giving his side of the story. That is the subtext of this effort by CJR.
#7 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Sat 20 Mar 2010 at 10:54 AM
Compare the robust defense of the Sandler's with the giddiness Clint Hendler had reporting on Richard Mellon Scaife’s divorce. Why Scaife’s divorce was an appropriate topic for a journalism review wasn’t really clear, and Hendler looked like a Cirque du Soleil contortionist with his explanations why it was appropriate.
All high profile philanthropists are treated fairly, some more fair than others.
#8 Posted by Mike H, CJR on Sat 20 Mar 2010 at 11:27 AM
Predictably cheesy hostile fact free commentary,
#9 Posted by Donald I, CJR on Sun 21 Mar 2010 at 10:38 AM
@Mike H
If anyone wants to take a trip down memory lane, you'll see that the piece very explicitly lays out three reasons why CJR readers might have been interested in the Washington Post's telling of the Scaife tale, namely that he was in the odd-for-a-publisher position of arguing against public access to court records, that they exposed the anemic financial condition of his pet newspaper, and that an earlier CJR piece on Scaife had been cleaned up in the rehashing for the Post's readers.
But I'll confess--and "confess" is hardly the right word, given that I joked about this in the third paragraph of the post in question--that I wrote about the Scaife filings for one main reason: they were funny.
#10 Posted by Clint Hendler, CJR on Mon 22 Mar 2010 at 11:38 AM
Richard Mellon Scaife... "high profile philanthropist"...
BWAHAHAHAH*cough cackle*HAHAHA!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/21/AR2007102101643_pf.html
Damn you, you made me choke on my coffee.
#11 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Mon 22 Mar 2010 at 01:03 PM
To Clint, OK, per your criteria - are the political actions being peddled by the Sandlers rules by which they would have found their own road to fabulous riches more difficult? One major problem with American left-wing politics is that it stinks of people who rise to wealth under rules they now wish to change for others coming along who wish to do the same.
Like environmentalist groups, whose demographics clearly spell out an "I've got mine (in Malibu or Martha's Vineyard or wherever), now I'm going to work to protect my status, and that of my children, by intoning left-wing rhetoric and working for restrictive regulation" mentality which is seldom explored by lazy, biased journalists who aspire to be courtiers of those people - most obviously, of a prominent political family back East. The spectacle of rich people - John Edwards being only the most obvious recent example - yodeling blood against other rich people, well, that should set a genuine journalist's BS detector a-ticking.
The Sandlers should be no exception. So would they have gotten rich under a political system they say they support? Would George Soros? I could go on . . .
#12 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Mon 22 Mar 2010 at 01:05 PM
So much corruption so little time. http://www.akbhomesucks.com
#13 Posted by LemonMeister, CJR on Tue 23 Mar 2010 at 02:39 PM
This article, like so many, reinforces how the Sandlers, like other wealthy patrons, are allowed to launder their reputations. And in the end this is all a balancing act: are the Sandlers doing enough good in sponsoring investigative journalists to outweigh the damage they've done to the economy?
And the Sandlers may have paved a philanthropic path for others who face legal problems: Will Goldman Sachs now sponsor investigative journalists? What about Richard Fuld? Perhaps if this were to start, at least groups of journalists subsidized by one magnate could at least investigate and report on journalists sponsored by a competitor. In other words, perhaps the Sandlers might be the subject of some good reporting if Wells Fargo starts a Propublica of its own.
#14 Posted by journoprof1, CJR on Tue 23 Mar 2010 at 11:36 PM
For the Sandlers to get a story in CJR defending them is an extraordinary PR success. Would Countrywide and Angelo Mozilo get such a sensitive look? One could make a case in Mozilo's defense if so inclined. There are pros and cons in every financial story.
One has to wonder if the Sandlers' ties with so many reporters, like Lowell Bergman and the staff of Propublica, (ties acquired with millions in donations) have helped them in their PR battles. No one knows strategic communications like an old reporter.
#15 Posted by Unemployed, CJR on Wed 24 Mar 2010 at 09:35 AM
The Sandlers are greedy people, just like the rest of corporate America. They cry "we are out for the little guy". I worked for them for many years and saved them millions of dollars. I was tens of thousands underpaid, never got a promotion and never got a bonus. While they promted people based on race and gender that did not even accomplish a fraction of what I did. They are scumbags and that is the bottom line. Herb took some of his cash and got into the paycheck loan business. That is one of the greediest businesses out there. He is a phoney and greedy scumbag that knew damn well what he was doing!
#16 Posted by Ex-World Employee, CJR on Sun 2 May 2010 at 03:01 PM