I was naive enough to think that the New York Times’ vendetta against former SIGTARP prosecutor Neil Barofsky was limited to bank propagandist Andrew Ross Sorkin and Administration mouthpiece Jackie Calmes, who penned a particularly ham-handed hit piece on Barofsky’s book Bailout.
But a new story by Ben Protess and Jessica Silver-Greenberg manages to lard a report on a new assignment that Barofsky looks set to land, that of serving as monitor to miscreant bank Credit Suisse, with as much snark and innuendo as possible. Fortunately, the effort at character assassination is so obvious as to backfire with anyone outside the circle of Barofsky antagonists. This is how the article begins:
Neil Barofsky was a government gadfly who made a career of needling, and at times pillorying, Wall Street and Washington over the 2008 bank bailouts.
This is a lot of snark packed into a single sentence. “Government gadfly” and “needling” paint Barofsky as a bureaucrat with little authority who made himself more prominent than he deserved to be by acting a nuisance. “Made a career” intimates that Barofsky relished the limelight and wanted more. In fact, Barofsky raised some important issues in his SIGTARP reports, which were generally well regarded, with the one that caused the most consternation being his probing of the New York Fed’s decision to pay out credit default swap contracts in full when it bailed out AIG. As Barofsky explained in Bailout, he felt it necessary to turn the media into an ally due to the limited resources of his team and the the Geithner Treasury’s clear message that they had no interest in having him do his job, and the petty and extreme efforts they made to undermine him.
The next paragraph in the article is less awful, but still tries to depict Barofsky as hungry for influence:
Now a partner at a private law firm, without access to power he once wielded as a federal prosecutor, he has managed to secure a familiar role: watchdog for one of the world’s biggest banks.
“Without access to power” creates the impression that that is something that Barofsky craves. Were that the case, he could have wound up in a more influential position if he were more willing to play by the Washington DC rules. Readers of Bailout no doubt recall the Mafia-esque scene at the outset in which Herb Allison tells Barofsky that he is hurting his career by taking his oversight job seriously, and insinuating that Barofsky would be taken care of if he were to back down.
In other words, the piece seeks at the outset to undermine recognition of Barofsky’s stature as an independent, tough-minded regulator, in the form of his imminent appointment by New York State Superintendent of Financial Services, Benjamin Lawsky, to the Credit Suisse assignment. The presumptive monitors, a team of Barofsky and his partner at Jenner & Block, Anthony Barkow, were selected in a competitive process from over 15 consulting and law firms. Yet the Times tries to imply that cronyism could have been at work in the choice, when Lawsky recused himself from the process:
Still, prosecutors and regulators have been criticized for steering monitor jobs to friends and former colleagues, creating the impression that the process enables an “old boys” network. In 2009, Congress held hearings about Chris Christie’s decision as United States attorney in New Jersey to award a monitor job worth as much as $52 million to John Ashcroft, the former attorney general who was once Mr. Christie’s boss.
Similar questions could arise from the selection of Mr. Barofsky to monitor Credit Suisse. Mr. Lawsky and Mr. Barofsky worked together as federal prosecutors in Manhattan and remain friends.
But to avoid the appearance of a conflict, Mr. Lawsky has recused himself from the selection of monitors, his spokesman said. Each time Mr. Lawsky orders a monitor as part of an enforcement action, his staff forms a five-person committee to choose from a list of applicants. Mr. Lawsky is later briefed on the committee’s decision, the spokesman said.In its selection of Mr. Barofsky, the committee appears to be sending a signal to Wall Street.
The article points out that Barofsky’s firm had an advantage by having sued Credit Suisse in the past, while many of the other contenders had represented the bank as some point. The story does discuss at some length how Lawsky is highly skeptical of bank-friendly monitors and fined Deloitte over a too-lienient report on Standard Chartered (a recidivist money launderer) and has also subpoenaed Promontory Financial Group and PricewaterhouseCoopers. Yet it manages to close with another dig at Barofsky:
But Mr. Barofsky is not above representing other corporate clients, including those who have tangled with Mr. Lawsky and other regulators. Mr. Barofsky is defending an online payday lender that one regulator accused of taking “money from consumers that those consumers did not owe.”
As reader Foppe summed up this disgraceful piece:
I would point out this article, in which two NYT Dealbook authors seem to derive enormous pleasure from analyzing the possibilities for conflicts of interest, corruption and nepotism in the bank monitor selection process that, in this particular case, has lead to the selection of Neil Barofsky as Credit Suisse bank monitor. You’d wish they were as driven in their reporting when they don’t (appear to) have an axe to grind.
Me thinks there is more of a friends of Hillary aspect to this attack. Right now the Clinton’s fear Obama’s search for his mini-me/anyone but Hillary may lead Obama to swallow his pride and back Elisabeth Warren. Best to attack frequently anyone and everyone associated with Sen. Warren. It also has the advantage of getting the banks and their pockets deeper onto Hillary’s side.
While I can see Obama wanting such a cloning of himself to follow him, I can’t see him actually lifting a finger to make it happen. This may be what saves us all from such an outcome.
And while I would dearly love to have a candidate of Elizabeth Warren’s competence, vision and energy to vote for, I cannot see her lifting a finger to help Obama. He’s screwed her over more than once. She’s says she’s not running….and I believe her. but events could conspire against her.
It’s a sad situation in the Democratic Party, which only looks good in comparison to the GOP, which is a basket case: fighting the Civil War all over again, without any possible good outcome.
Appalling and yet predictable from these sewer-dwellers: accuse the enemy of exactly what you are doing so that any response looks like a playground spat. Since Barofsky refused to play patty cakes with them, he gets painted as a crass favor-seeker. The writers can now gather their rewards from sources with meaningless insider tidbits to further their careers. Thanks for pointing this out so that occasional readers of the Times can recall their names forever.
Usually I expect to see yellow journalism in the Washington Post; but, with its sorry pieces on Glenn Greenwald and Neil Barofsky, the Times is catching up.
The NYT has had countless other pieces on issues from the deficit/debt to trade to the Ukraine to Iraq to charter schools to the environment where important information is missing, facts or necessary context are omitted, false equivalence reigns, where it seems little more than a press release for the administration or Boehner or any other corporate hack in our government or for the corporations directly…
“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.” M. Gandhi.
When doing your job as a regulator/investigator tarnishes the self-saintly image of our masters, we slaves should expect the whip. To be honest, the selection of J&BAB to perform court-ordered oversight is a clear sign that New York’s Superintendent of Financial Services hasn’t yet been corrupted. Neil should brush off the Gray Lady’s sniping for the bankster ass-kissing it truly is (if such yellow journalism is not Dean Baquet’s intent, he should fire his financial section editor and have a talk with the writers) and take on his new assignment (assuming he gets it) with gusto – for all of us.
Think of the NY Times as a great keyboard on which the corporate elites and government play to deny and obliterate our understanding of their machinations.
Noted that it’s not just the NY Times. Other corporate media mouthpieces for Wall Street are also participating, which strongly suggests a coordinated attack on Barofsky.
Here is one example from earlier this morning, first section: http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-06-24/levine-on-wall-street-bulletproof-vests-and-hoards-of-gold
What are they afraid of, really?
precedent/the principle of the thing. It’s just not proper for Lawsky to make political statements like this, which is why they’re insinuating stuff.
At least we now know that (at least) these two reporters aren’t (utterly) stupid, and that they *get* institutionalized corruption. It’s just that they never ever want to apply their analytic skills normally. Great news, non?
Where is Judy Miller when you need her? The NY Times ain’t what it used to be.
Wait – people are still reading the New York Times? If true, that would be news worth analyzing.