Matt Taibbi and the Internet versus Goldman Sachs

Wir hatten kürzlich darüber berichtet, wie Matt Taibbi vom Rolling Stone Magazine die "Große Amerikanische Blasenmaschine" Goldman Sachs als zentrale Figur im großen Spiel ums große Geld portraitierte. Eine Dame im Schach, sozusagen. Nun antwortet er auf seinem Blog auf die ersten Reaktionen. In seiner Replik erwähnt er unter anderem, daß er Goldman durchaus im Vorfeld Gelegenheit gegeben hatte Stellung zu nehmen. Ganz im Sinne von "audiatur est altera pars". Taibbi hatte dafür einfache Fragen formuliert. Die Reaktion von Goldman ist bezeichnend:

"I intentionally put a lot of yes/no questions on that list. If the underlying thinking behind any of those questions was faulty, it would have been easy enough for them to say so and to educate us as to the truth. Instead, here is the response that we got:

“Your questions are couched in such a way that presupposes the conclusions and suggests the people you spoke with have an agenda or do not fully understand the issues.”

You have to have swallowed half a lifetime of carefully-worded p.r. statements to see the message written between the lines here. That this is a non-denial denial is obvious, but what’s more notable here is that they didn’t stop with just a flat “no comment,” which they easily could have done. No, they had to go a little further than that and — and this is pure Goldman, just outstanding stuff — make it clear that both I and my sources are simply not as smart as they are and don’t understand what we’re talking about. So the rough translation here is, “No comment, but if you were as smart as us, you wouldn’t be asking these questions.”

Matt, you`ll never blog alone.