Tweet
Guess what? Ben Stein’s an American male. Matt Taibbi’s an American male. Therefore they must be EXACTLY THE SAME!!!!
Of course they’re really not — that, kiddies, is an example of what’s called "argument by analogy". Argument by analogy is a favorite way of bullshitters to try and make it look like they’re "debunking" someone without actually providing the necessary facts in context to do so. Which is, of course, why John Carney uses it to attack Matt Taibbi:
Although Matti Taibbi’s "vampire squid" was intensely memorable, the basic thought behind his famous Rolling Stone column was anticipated by Ben Stein almost two years ago.
Stein’s December 5th, 2007 column column posits that:
- Goldman Sachs is secretly running the world.
- Goldman has been a multi-generational bubble factory.
- Goldman immorally marketed mortgage backed securities while its traders were shorting them.
"The world is far too complex a place to be run by any one group," Stein wrote. "But the closest I have recently seen to such a world-running body would have to be a certain large investment bank, whose alums are routinely Treasury secretaries, high advisers to presidents, and occasionally a governor or United States senator."
Wow! Ben Stein and Matt Taibbi almost kinda-sorta have the same opinion of Goldman Sachs! That must mean that Taibbi can be written off or something, right?
Carney spends lots of time beating up Ben Stein — who has now officially fallen from favor since he started shilling for that skanky "free credit report" outfit — but he doesn’t ever truly address Taibbi’s article (which you can read here) to prove his claim that Taibbi and Stein think exactly the same thoughts with regard to Goldman Sachs, much less the claim that Taibbi lifted his opinions of GS directly from Stein with minimal alteration. In fact, the only time he quotes from Taibbi’s piece is right in the very passage I just cited to you. That’s it.
Is Matt Taibbi’s article wrong in its basic assumptions? If all you had to go on was Carney’s critique, you’d never know one way or the other. But you would know that, for whatever reason or none, John Carney really doesn’t like Matt Taibbi.
23 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
The MSM appears to me to have a group narcicism. Once admitted to the club they are there to stay regardless of how stupid or flat out wrong they are historically. If anyone dare to challenge their preeminence the club comes together to do battle against the challenger.
I don’t always agree with Taibbi, but by God he was the only reporter talking sense about the Michael Jackson trial, and explaining why, as it was happening, as every other alleged reporter was saying that Jackson was going to lose, the case against Jackson was worse than pathetic and that he would eventually walk. (Short version: It wasn’t that Jackson was not a child abuser — indeed Taibbi takes pains to present the evidence to the contrary — but that the people who brought this particular case against him did such a rotten job of it, and relied on such decidedly unreliable people for their witnesses, that the jury in the end had no choice but to acquit.)
Stein is in a clique of frontal lobe dead enders. He constantly tells people the wrong things on the Finance boards. He may have said those things about Golden Sacks, but he really meant for everyone to run out and give more of their money. Media has promoted falsehoods for so long that nobody trusts what is said.
This is another episode of Journamalism. Animal like behavior in a journalistic approach.
“My Granny! What a big mouth you have!”
“Ha! The better to eat you up with!”
“Argument by analogy. I;
Dance like Fred Astaire–I use both feet.
Sing like Freddie Mercury–I use vocal chords.
Fight like Jet Li–using everything.
Shit, I got’s me some talents.
Oh, and I write’s like Shakespeare. I use, um, wurds and stuff.
Thanks PW.
Now if only we can get Lou Dobbs to start pitching products to aide his gherkin wielding viewers.
You are absolutely right, mike. I’ve lived in Washington long enough to witness it firsthand, and with great dismay. Taibbi rocks!
You got it!
Guess what? Ben Stein’s an American male. Matt Taibbi’s an American male. Therefore they must be EXACTLY THE SAME!!!!
yeah, I get those two guys confused all the time.
Ben Stein — who has now officially fallen from favor since he started shilling for that skanky “free credit report” outfit….
it’s the “free” part that makes it skanky, right?
Stein was shilling for the wrong company and not the companies he was supposed to shill for.
I hear OxyClean is looking for a barker.
The ME said cocaine was a contributing factor in Mays’ death. Wonder if he got his lines mixed up.
Stein used to have a show on The Comedy Channel which was pretty damn funny.
gave Jimmy Kimmel his start, AFAIK….
I remember that show. Then he shows up as this complete reichwingnutjob.
I’m disappointed no one on Wall Street is behind bars yet. I don’t even think there are any on going criminal investigations. There should be but money talks and the financial sector has more than anyone else.
When the smoke clears I fear Wall Street will have every bit as much influence as it ever had in Congress.
Nice. I play the piano like Horowitz..since my fingers use the piano keys, and all…
Don’t forget about Glenn Beck. He’d be a good shill for anti-psychotic meds…
I started writing about Goldman well before Taibbi. Nothing very noteworthy about that. Goldman is about as hard to ignore as the sun coming up on a clear day. The question is not why Taibbi wrote about Goldman. It is why more reporters, especially financial reporters, haven’t.
Because Goldman will call their editors and publishers and say bad things about them?
You have to remember that most financial reporters missed the housing bubble along with the rest of Wall Street. When it burst, they took as gospel what Wall Street told them that it was no big deal and that the market had quickly taken all the fallout from it into account.
So it is with Goldman. All they see is the success because Goldman tells them what a success it is. They never bother to ask why such a predatory, wealth-destroying enterprise that serves no market function whatever, except separating rubes from their money, should even be allowed to exist.
They’re no different than the Village reporters. Access and all the other stuff that goes along with it.
What it means to me is that we didn’t pay attention to the first warning, so now after the second warning we have a second chance to do something about it. But will we?
Bob in HI
Hmph. I lost all faith in Stein’s credibility when he put out “Expelled.” Horrid, horrid, anti-science film.