This looks for all the world like a publicist-driven story in The Wall Street Journal story on how Andrew Madoff is coping a week and a half after his brother Mark’s apparent suicide.
The paper puts it on C1 and tells readers lots of mundane details about Andrew’s life. And the story’s about as tough as an US Weekly profile of a cooperating actor and just as useful. Here’s the headline, which also looks like something in that august supermarket rag:
A Madoff Son Looks Forward
In Wake of Scandal and Suicide, Pursuits and Relationships Serve as Anchor
The access-vs.-scrutiny trade-off is never easy, but in this case, the paper goes too far, producing an unbalanced story that soft-pedals serious questions about Andrew Madoff’s possible involvement in one of the greatest frauds in U.S. history.
In the story we find out that Andrew talked to his piano teacher last week, that he and his fiancee (who is, notably, on the record here) went to a taco bar on Saturday night, and that he and Mark “loved each other very much,” which is in the Journal’s words, not in a quote.
Check out this bit of reporting:
Andrew and Ms. Hooper typically wake up at 5 a.m. and have 18 active Google calendars, among them a calendar for each of their three kids, one for their exercise routines, a meal calendar, and a social calendar, according to someone familiar with them.
I bolded that last bit to point out what is, and I’m being kind here, not one of the finest moments in Journal sourcing. Somebody familiar with a family’s Google calendars? Come on.
Not only does Andrew Madoff get a wholly sympathetic profile about him in the most important business paper in the world while he’s facing civil suits and possible criminal charges, but his fiancee gets to plug her new business:
Early this year, Ms. Hooper, 38, launched Black Umbrella LLC, a business that helps people build emergency plans for a number of scenarios, including a job loss or a physical disaster. Andrew Madoff is director of operations for the company.
And:
Andrew and Ms. Hooper have a diner near their apartment that they call Location No. 1, a place where their children would meet them in an emergency. The pair have trained as community emergency responders who could be called upon to help neighbors in crisis.
As for Bernard Madoff’s crimes, Ms. Hooper says, “there are some things that are just going to be a disaster no matter what you have planned.”
Wow.
By contrast, here’s all we get about the legal controversy over the Andrew and Mark’s involvement:
Both Madoff brothers have been sued by Mr. Picard, the trustee recovering assets for Mr. Madoff’s investors. An October 2009 suit alleges that more than $14 million was redeemed from an account for Andrew in his father’s investment-advisory business. The account wasn’t funded, the trustee says. Rather, purported profits were the result of “brazenly fabricated transactions.”
Andrew Madoff and other family members “knew, or should have known” that withdrawn amounts were based on fraudulent transactions, the complaint alleges.
This paragraph, up higher, is all there is about the ongoing criminal investigations of Andrew (one of which the Journal itself broke in a story earlier this year):
Bernard Madoff’s confession that his multibillion-dollar investment business was a fraud turned his sons’ lives upside down. The brothers, who had worked in another part of their father’s firm, found themselves jobless, and facing criminal and public scrutiny and a spate of lawsuits.
That makes the “criminal scrutiny” seem like it was in the past tense and, anyway, unfair.
But the Journal found it newsworthy enough to put this report on B1 less than two weeks ago:
Federal prosecutors are ratcheting up pressure on one of Bernard L. Madoff’s former “back office” employees to cooperate with their investigation as they have continued in recent months to scrutinize his brother and sons, according to people familiar with the situation.
What is apparently, from the Journal’s previous reporting, an intense criminal investigation should have made the paper leery of writing this one.
- 1
- 2
Well put.
#1 Posted by Daniel Marrin, CJR on Mon 20 Dec 2010 at 06:06 PM
you are entitled to your opinion but your piece is just as sensational and cheap shot at Andrew Madoff. He may or may not be involved but anyone is entitled to find a way to live. The guy has lost his brother and it does not matter if WSJ gave a sympathetic piece it does not deter the fact that he will still be sued for crimes he may nor may not have committed. If it was true the sons had no idea of the crime of their father then they are just as much a victim as those people who lose money. Imagine being betrayed by your own father. I think people like you only reflects the narrowmindedness of you as a person.
#2 Posted by belinda, CJR on Mon 20 Dec 2010 at 06:50 PM
A newspaper's coverage of an issue should be multifaceted. In light of the recent suicide, the emotional consequence of the fraud in the Madoff family was an interesting and worthwhile facet. It seems like you are upset that this story was not a facile summary of the facts of the Madoff fraud. Everyone already knows those details, and the WSJ will continue to report new details of the sons' potential involvement in anything criminal. The WSJ isn't ignoring the possibility that the sons were complicit in Bernie's crimes; you yourself mentioned the story on B1. The Madoff saga is complicated, fascinating financial history unfolding in front of us. Not everyone who talks about it is willing to go on record. Maybe you'd be more comfortable with the simple outcomes and clear morality of Aesop's Fables.
#3 Posted by Nancy, CJR on Mon 20 Dec 2010 at 07:29 PM
Gail Wynand of The Banner would be proud of this story in the WSJ.
#4 Posted by Ralph, CJR on Mon 20 Dec 2010 at 09:21 PM
I guess the Bernie didn't snooker Rupert or any of the News Corps underlings. Until the members of the Fourth Estate, or should I say Fifth Column, suffer a direct loss of something of value they'll continue to produce such pap. One of my favorite quotations from the speeches made during the French Revolution touches upon this issue. "When will the people be educated? When they have enough bread to eat, when the rich and the government stop bribing treacherous pens and tongues to deceive them. When will this be? Never."
#5 Posted by Jack, CJR on Tue 21 Dec 2010 at 11:06 AM
Madoff Victims are being subjected to a secondary Ponzi Scheme and that one is with regards to the truth and who and why are the forces in the mainstream media protecting this man? There is something so deeply and fundamentally wrong with our society that members of the Madoff Crime Family who were part of the Inside Job are still walking around the Upper East Side, Tribeca, Greenwich, CT and Palm Beach (Ruth Madoff, Peter Madoff, Shana Madoff Swanson et. al etc) with access to most of their funds and use of multiple multi-million dollar residences while all those folks who pumped money in from feeder funds, like Walter Noel’s Fairifield Greenwich Group and Robert Jaffe's Comad, face bankruptcy, homelessness and long term financial insecurity. Then the further indignity of it all is that they have to bear witness to credible mainstream media journalists spending their precious time writing sympathetic profiles about how life is so difficult now for folks like cold hearted fraudster Andrew Madoff who has emerged as a veritable American Psycho as he relaxes and plans how to move on in life at his $4.4 Million luxury apartment at 433 East 74th Street on Manhattan's exclusive Upper East Side, while he cycles around Central Park and spends weekends at his Greenwich estate. Guess since it is the holiday season, the lives of the bankrupt, bordering on homeless average citizens who were ripped off by the Madoff Crime Family of International Financial Racketeers is not one which would bring much holiday cheer. This SOB Andrew Madoff, his mother Ruth Madoff and his cousin Shana Madoff Swanson should be in prison or worse. If the elites in our society ignore the symbolism of Madoffs free at large and walking around as if nothing has changed as they get on with their lives, it is only a matter of time before ‘Vigilante Justice’ will be more sternly administered by the people in the street. This WSJ piece is veritably obscene.
#6 Posted by Christopher London, CJR on Tue 21 Dec 2010 at 06:23 PM
Once again, the WJS has lost it' standards after the Murdoch acquistion. I read it once last motnh and haven't since. It's not what it was. But then again, no newspaper is. At least CJR, can point out how lousy WJS has become.
I would like to set a real piece on Madoff's niece, an attorney who ran the complaince dept at Madoff's firm and married the guy from the SEC who'se job it was to oversee the Madoff fund. Tell me how THEY didn't know.
#7 Posted by Christina Berry, CJR on Mon 3 Jan 2011 at 06:27 PM