Audit chieftain Dean Starkman made an appearance on The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer on Friday to discuss the performance of the business press in the years building up to the financial crisis.
Dean faced off with BusinessWeek’s Peter Coy and the Los Angeles Times’s Kathy Kristof, and made his case that the business press largely failed. Coy and Kristof largely disagree.
Here’s the money quote from Dean:
But I think, when you look back at the record, you’ll see that confronting powerful institutions about their lending practices, not to mention Wall Street, was inadequate.
Coy defended the press, BusinessWeek in particular, by citing specific good stories it did years before the meltdown.
Dean’s response:
I think that Kathy and Peter, you know, reflect the institutional response to the question. I don’t fully agree with it, or I don’t really agree with it at all.
But, you know, the issue is… what was the message delivered over time? And you can cite really excellent stories that did appear episodically over time, but you also have to take into account other headlines that you could mention.
“Washington Mutual is using creative retail approach to turning the banking world upside down,” Fortune in 2003. “Sachs Appeal: Goldman Sachs has Emerged from the Market Bust as a Trading Colossus,” Forbes, 2007. You could really pick any number of these stories.
And what you’re looking at there are stories that aren’t really warnings, but, in fact, is the opposite. They’re basically saying, hey, these institutions are all clear. And I think that has to be taken into account.
Meanwhile, Kristof is incredibly weak here:
JEFFREY BROWN: All right, let me let Kathy Kristof weigh in here. What did you see that was done well, what not so well?
KATHY KRISTOF: Well, you know, I think all of the major publications had done a number of stories about toxic mortgages, about companies that were going way off the rails on what they were approving.
The problem is, is kind of what the other two have been just nipping at, is that we were early. And we kept on, you know, being the voice in the wilderness, the voice in the wilderness, the voice in the wilderness. And pretty soon, you say, “OK, how many times can I do that story?” And so you stop. (Ryan here: Nooo!)
And we also got incredible flak toward the end of the bubble when we would write stories about toxic mortgages, because there were all sorts of bloggers who were trying to keep this fraud going. And they would just attack you, attack the people who you had quoted. They would do all sorts of things in order to stop you from publishing.
So?
Alternate Ending: Damned bloggers!
CJR should not be so self righteous. How did CJR do in covering the financial press during the bubble, 2005-2006? Perhaps CJR should look back at its own coverage, in the Audit and print edition, and do a self-appraisal.
#1 Posted by Anne Nonymous, CJR on Mon 16 Mar 2009 at 04:44 PM
Kristof said:
"And we also got incredible flak toward the end of the bubble when we would write stories about toxic mortgages, because there were all sorts of bloggers who were trying to keep this fraud going."
Isn't anyone going to ask, insist, that she back up this remarkable statement? All sorts of bloggers were trying to "keep this fraud going"? Which "bloggers" were they, exactly?
What "kinds of things" were these "bloggers" doing to stop her from publishing? I want to know.
Those are serious charges to fling around without any kind of followup, in my opinion. Ryan? Anne?
#2 Posted by Tom Traubert, CJR on Tue 17 Mar 2009 at 07:17 AM
Anne,
That's not a bad idea. Whatever we did, which I don't think was much (Neither Dean nor Elinore nor I was here then, and I believe The Audit was a much smaller operation), wasn't good enough, clearly.
By the way, we don't mean to be self-righteous. Nobody around here feels that way, that's for sure (I was in the business press during the bubble). Our criticism is about trying to make press institutions better. It's not about blame; it's about reform.
#3 Posted by Ryan Chittum, CJR on Tue 17 Mar 2009 at 10:51 AM
Tom, you are right. That is totally asinine.
Ryan, I went through some past stories in CJR Audit. It was very hard, because your archives don't sort out Audit stories, but among them I found this:
http://www.cjr.org/the_audit/a_lot_of_hot_air.php
An article criticizing Business Week for writing about the private equity "bubble." It seems to me that this story has withstood the test of time and the criticism is lame and naive
You may want to go through your records a bit and look at your own coverage, in addition to other people.
#4 Posted by Anne Nonymous, CJR on Tue 17 Mar 2009 at 06:21 PM
Anne, "Tom, you are right. That is totally asinine."
No, really. Would you ask her? It wasn't a rhetorical question.
#5 Posted by Tom Traubert, CJR on Wed 18 Mar 2009 at 08:42 AM