Jay Rosen points me to a story on AIG in The New York Times this morning and asks if a “‘he said, she said’ story is the best the New York Times can do with (an) ex-AIG boss at this date.”
This one’s easy: No.
The Times’s story offers no analysis and forces readers—95 percent of whom know little or nothing about Greenberg’s tenure at AIG—to try to guess who’s right.
Refusing to accept any personal blame for his former company’s collapse, Mr. Greenberg insisted that A.I.G.’s problems stemmed from mismanagement after he left and that the Treasury and Federal Reserve had made things worse by trying to break the business up and sell it off in pieces…
Mr. Greenberg immediately found himself in a bitter long-distance fight with A.I.G.’s current, government-installed management. Even as he was testifying, A.I.G. accused him of playing a central role in A.I.G. Financial Products, the unit that caused the company’s collapse last year.
There’s no attempt to try to separate out who’s right here, even though everybody but Hank Greenberg knows he has major responsibility for driving AIG into the ground.
Here’s some stuff that helps explain why. I just culled it from the excellent Washington Post three-parter on AIG in December (if you haven’t read that yet, make sure you do):
He created the Financial Products division in 1987 with traders from soon-to-be disgraced Drexel Burnham Lambert, approved its entry into the credit-default swap market in 1998, empowered Joseph Cassano, oversaw FP when it set up “sham” companies that resulted in tens of millions in fines, was an unindicted co-conspirator in a huge fraud at AIG, oversaw the company’s credit downgrade from AAA, was in charge when half of the company’s $80 billion in CDS on subprime CDOs were written. Apparently, Cassano and FP stopped issuing CDS within months of Greenberg’s exit in 2005.
How much more evidence do you need to tell your readers that this guy has significant responsibility for the disaster that came to his company and the entire economy—to not let him spin away?
And it’s not like Greenberg had a stellar rep before his former company blew up.
There was the scandal that forced Greenberg out of AIG in 2005. The Gen Re convictions on charges to which he was an unindicted co-conspirator. He and three others settled with a Louisiana pension manager for $115 million in September after it sued him in 2002 for self-dealing.
Why cut him slack with a he said/she said?
Rosen asks another question via Twitter:
Have they just accepted a system where the columnists tell us what’s actually happening and the news is assumed to be off?
No, I don’t think so. There are plenty of regular news stories in the Times business section that are rich with analysis and cutting-through-the-BS. In Business Day a couple of days ago, for instance, there was this news story from Floyd Norris (who happens to be a columnist, as well) on the FASB accounting-rule changes:
The changes, proposed two weeks ago after a Congressional hearing in which Robert H. Herz, the chairman of the Financial Accounting Standards Board, was essentially ordered to change the rules or face Congressional action, are generally supported by banks, although some want the board to go even further.
But they have produced a strong reaction from some investors, with one investor group complaining that the changes would “effectively gut the transparent application of fair value measurement.” The group also says changes would delay the recovery of the banking system.
“Investors,” wrote Kurt N. Schacht, the managing director of the Centre for Financial Market Integrity of the CFA Institute, “will not be willing to commit capital to firms that hide the economic value of their assets and liabilities.”
Norris pretty well exposes the problems with this new rule by effectively weighting the value and truth of what each side is saying. He does something similar today.

Agreed. I worked at AIG for 4 years in the '90's and can verify that Greenberg knew EXACTLY what was going on at AIGFP. As pointed out in the excellent Wa Post piece, many of the derivative contracts that blew up were in place before he left.
That being said, there are two other reasons why AIG melted down. (1) Greenberg built a beautiful but too-complicated machine and was not willing to pay enough to staff it properly (yes, AIG pays less than other financial firms, despite recent news stories). (2) Spitzer did no one any favors (least of all the AIG shareholders) by ousting Greenberg, essentially to satisfy Siptzer's own ego.
Yes, poor management is bad but poor oversight (Spitzer) can make it worse. Something to keep in mind in this ongoing crisis...
#1 Posted by JLD, CJR on Fri 3 Apr 2009 at 01:14 PM
I saw that story this morning and had the same reaction: Who's right here (or more right)? Not having time or inclination to go looking for myself, I just find out via a nice piece of media criticism. Thanks, Ryan.
Here: "Why cut [EDMUND L. ANDREWS} slack with a he said/she said?"
How about moving this question from the rhetorical to the informative? Why not ask him directly? And then, let us know what he said.
#2 Posted by Tom, CJR on Fri 3 Apr 2009 at 03:14 PM
Sorry, but my favorite "false balance" story today was "Fuzzy Picture of Taxes, Spending and Debt" By David M. Herszenhorn:
"Democrats say their budget would provide a tax cut for 95 percent of Americans. Republicans say the Democrats’ budget 'spends too much, taxes too much and borrows too much.'
"Wondering who is right? There is no simple answer."
Actually, it is pretty simple: The Democrats are correct, the Republican are indulging in typical hyperbole, and you're comparing apples and oranges. Shame.
#3 Posted by Dan, CJR on Fri 3 Apr 2009 at 06:48 PM
i am ready to settle please tom its been so long of the same things acc.06-00404511 car my son hit in sanford nc i was a passager i was hurt . i need to settel now . please you can emaile me or call any time but you knew that
#4 Posted by sheila blackwell, CJR on Tue 26 May 2009 at 02:58 PM
Good call.
The business press has been letting Greenberg get away with murder for years now. He is a direct competitor and litigation adversary of AIG, but they still use him as a source to comment on the company, as if he was a disinterested party.
Watching the CNBC types gush over him is embarrassing. It's as if they are so happy he will help them suck up airtime that they don't care how incredible he is. Just once I would like to see them introduce him as "unindicted co-conspirator Hank Greenberg", just to see what would happen.
#5 Posted by garhighway, CJR on Tue 26 May 2009 at 07:12 PM