The lineup of writers on financial affairs who have spoken at Wall Street events—and are promoted by speakers’ bureaus as available for hire—is star-studded. The list includes Michael Lewis, a best-selling author and contributing editor to Vanity Fair; Niall Ferguson, the author, Harvard professor, and a featured contributor to Newsweek and The Daily Beast; James Surowiecki, who writes “The Financial Page” column for The New Yorker; and James B. Stewart, the author and Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist who has written widely for newspapers and magazines. (Stewart says he’s done no speaking engagements with for-profit sources since he began writing a financial column for The New York Times in June 2011.)
“I turn down 20 paid gigs for every one that I do, and I don’t particularly like to do them,” Lewis said in an e-mail. “Raising of course the question of why do any paid speeches for anyone, the answer to which is: a) it feels insane not to do a few of them; b) it actually helps me, as a writer, to be forced to air views and material in front of a live audience; and c) I often pick up valuable material from the hosts.”
Lewis went on to say, though, that since the financial crisis he has “turned down anything from anyone who took bailout money, but not because I worried they might be paying me to be more polite about them. I didn’t think that businesses being kept alive by public subsidies should be paying speaker fees at all to anyone.”
Fees vary widely. Niall Ferguson’s “booking fee range” is $50,001 and up, according to the All American Speakers website. In 2011, he spoke at a Las Vegas conference sponsored by Skybridge Capital that The Economist called the “Davos for the hedge-fund world.” He didn’t respond to a request for comment.
Fareed Zakaria, host of the weekly CNN show Fareed Zakaria GPS, has a rate of $75,000, as reported in Harper’s. His general topic on the show is geopolitics, but he has covered Occupy Wall Street and the European financial crisis and interviewed Mohamed A. El-Erian, the CEO of the investment firm Pimco. Over the years, he has been retained for speeches by numerous financial firms, including Baker Capital, Catterton Partners, Driehaus Capital Management, ING, Merrill Lynch, Oak Investment Partners, Charles Schwab, and T. Rowe Price, according to the website of the Royce Carlton speakers bureau.
Zakaria didn’t respond to a request for comment, either, but a CNN spokeswoman said: “We have full confidence in Fareed Zakaria’s professionalism and judgment and do not think his outside speaking appearances interfere with his CNN responsibilities on his weekly show or his commentary on CNN.”
The fees might sound like big money—and to most journalists, they are. But to Wall Street, they’re peanuts, a readily justifiable expense. One reason financial firms hire high-profile journalists for speeches is for favorable brand association. Back in November, Bank of America issued a press release touting its engagement of Malcolm Gladwell, a star staff writer for The New Yorker and best-selling author, for a series of speeches “to deliver quality education and actionable advice to small business owners in various markets throughout the country.” The entire point seemed to be to forge a public link between a tarnished brand (the bank), and a winning one (a journalist often described in profiles as the epitome of cool). Criticized as “a shill” for Bank of America by Jason Linkins of The Huffington Post, Gladwell told The Atlantic Wire that, “like any number of other writers these days who do speaking on the side, I’m happy to chat about whatever I’m working on to whomever wants to listen.”
But there are many occasions when the event is private and exclusive. Asked about a talk that Zakaria once gave to Baker Capital, a staffer at the Manhattan-based private-equity firm said only that the event took place at the Boathouse in Central Park and was for investors. A request to senior management for more details went unanswered.

The idea that anyone would pay Ferguson, the USA-is-on-the-rise/wait-no, we're-an-empire-in-decline hack any money at all to declaim his daft and ever-shifting Big Thoughts, is itself kind of the scandal.
Then again, hedgie numbskulls who think a proper British accent=intelligence probably deserve to have their collective eyes ripped out this way.
But wasn't this supposed to be a story about journalists?
#1 Posted by Edward Ericson Jr., CJR on Mon 19 Mar 2012 at 01:59 PM
Sorry, but this seems like journalism ethics 101. Speaking for fees to industry groups you cover is unethical. Gretchen Morgenson has got it right -- she'll accept paid speaking gigs at universities but if she speaks to vetted industry groups, she does it for free. End of story. I thought we already went through this back in the 1990s when the Chicago Tribune's Jim Warren smoked out and shamed prominent journalists doing paid speaking gigs. How soon we forget. Kudos to Robert Thomson of the WS Journal and to CNBC for flatly barring their reporters from doing paid speeches.
#2 Posted by Harris Meyer, CJR on Tue 20 Mar 2012 at 08:30 PM
Er... this all seems a bit po-faced to me - what about all the lunches, dinners, sporting events, even concerts that journos regularly attend in order to "build relationships" with execs from all industries?
#3 Posted by Brian, CJR on Wed 21 Mar 2012 at 01:35 AM
There's a world of difference, Brian. As a journalist, I attend panels, business dinners, cymposiums and other events where there is a lot of fancy food and other comforts. I do it as a part of my work to see the interactions and get more context for the information I get. I can easily go without this kind of 'reward' and, in fact, often resent it and would much rather just do interviews in a cafe or on the phone.
It's a -very- different level of commitment if I'm getting real cash on a regular basis for services. For one thing, suddenly my car, the payments on my new apartment and other solid things now depend on this person/company being happy with me and not closing the money tap. Also, after such an engagement you are linked with you customer in a very business-like way: you have become a partner, not a watcher.
#4 Posted by Brazilian Rascal, CJR on Wed 21 Mar 2012 at 10:43 AM
IT was OBVIOUS that she was a shill for Wall Street!!!!!!!! NO DOUBT!!!
Glamorous...NOT ..at ALL?!?!?
I hated her lisp!
#5 Posted by Pat, CJR on Thu 22 Mar 2012 at 09:11 AM
This explains some of the happy talk in the news media. Corporate ownership of the same media explains the rest. Prominent rewards to individual media content creators makes it easy for all concerned to 'go along, get along'.
The outcome is an America corrupt as an Ottoman satrapy.
#6 Posted by steve from virginia, CJR on Thu 22 Mar 2012 at 11:28 AM
gee - imagine a women having the cheek to do what men having been doing forever & i mean forever....
#7 Posted by susie m, CJR on Sun 25 Mar 2012 at 10:54 PM
Re: Gillian Tett's book Fool's Gold "skewered the financial industry"
Hardly. I found it to be a hagiography of JPMorgan.
#8 Posted by Knute, CJR on Sat 9 Jun 2012 at 12:18 AM
This article is interesting but doesn't go far enough.
Tett and the entire FT, as much of the financial press in London and New York, have been more than friendly to the financial-industry types who pay their speakers fees, buy their ads, give them scoops, write their big-name guest essays, make them feel important.
Tett and many of the other people in the article have editorialized again and again for maximum bailouts and bazookas (still doing it re the euro), ventriloquising their hedgie and other Wall Street friends who love nothing better than to offload their bad paper and get a good ride on asset price inflation. Of course the FT speaks for the City. Duh.
#9 Posted by scott, CJR on Sun 12 Aug 2012 at 04:39 PM