From the Washington Post piece today (2/15/11) about TARP inspector general Neil Barofsky’s resignation:
“We’re fine with critics,” said one Treasury official, who spoke on condition of anonymity in order to speak more candidly. “[But] he’s been consistently wrong about a lot of big things.”
That’s a prettyserious charge to level atsomeone–which is probablywhy you’d do so anonymously, since then youdon’t have to back it up. Why the Post would print it is another matter entirely. Thefact that they would refer to this as a “candid” assessment is totally puzzling. Read the rest of the article, though, and you come away with a sense that Barofsky upset the wrong people:
He quickly emerged as an aggressive overseer, viewed as a much-needed cop monitoring for waste and fraud within TARP by some lawmakers and watchdog groups, and, by Treasury officials and financial-industry representatives, as a self-promoter whose overreaching investigations scared some needy banks away from participating in the federal aid program.
In his sometimes scathing reports to Congress, Barofsky showed little reluctance in criticizing administration officials on everything from how their lack of transparency was fueling “anger, cynicism and distrust” to how their foreclosure prevention efforts had fallen well below expectations.
If the Post really believes that Barofsky was “wrong about a lot of big things,” it should explain–or get someone else to do so. Giving a government official–who has presumably been on the receiving end of Barofsky’s criticism–a chance to hit back anonymously is poor journalism.
Why is Barofsky quitting? Should we expect a bank toady to replace him, ya think?
One lousy blog?Figures.This guy lambasted Obama and his minions about Tarp and he was the man with all the figures in hand.Figures you all are silent.It so figures
I first read about this in Salon, via Glenn Greenwald, who, like FAIR, routinely points out this kind of depressingly bad journalism–the use of anonymity when none is warranted. The cowardly journalist (and his employers ) was flambayed (as usual) by Greenwald. Barofsky’s a good man–there’s no room for someone like him in the Village, just the toadies who sneer at him.
P.S. Fuck you, Wall. And it’s a post, not a blog, you numbskull. Jesus!
P.P.S.: I hereby re-intate my silence regarding first-person replies to the above troll. Apologies to FAIR, and the rest of the free world, for my moment of weakness. Onward, Christian Soldiers, and Semper Fi!
The word “candid” is probably a misprint. What WaPo probably meant to say was “candied.” I have a source who’ll confirm this at the highest levels of a government “run” by journalists in favor of a few, harmless multi-billionaires.
Just how can I make this claim, you ask?. It came from WaPo’s most reliable “inside” source — the guy I meet up withwith on a regular basis in a parking garage near the Watergate complex. Oddly, my news source has been airing dirty linen for WaPo for the the last 40 years. [Actually, while he’s at it — he should also be airing his own dirty linen. The guy really goes begging for soap and water and a lack of personal hygiene.]
But I digress.
Let’s just call him “DT.” DT strongly implies that “candied” actually refers to the posteriors of nearly all of WaPo’s news editors and proof readers — who’re lucky enough to get the month right — let alone the story.
Still, what’s some minor disagreement over a few trillion dollars of national debt worth, anyway?