So what’s the point of hiring journalists for such unpublicized events? It’s possible that attendees glean insights that are useful for their investments in the securities markets—as suggested by some of the comments on Gillian Tett’s speeches. But it’s hard to see how professional investors are going to learn much of actionable value from a journalist, even an accomplished one. The exception might be for political insights about, say, government regulation or taxation of an industry. Journalists often do possess such insights—and Wall Street firms employ an army of political-intelligence gatherers in Washington, typically lobbyists and consultants, to be as up-to-date as possible on actions that might affect investment holdings and strategies.
Asked why she thought journalists like herself were sought to speak at Wall Street events, Tett, whose 2009 book Fool’s Gold skewered the financial industry, replied: “We’re paid to think on our feet. It’s not because they’re trying to buy our minds or influence.” And indeed, her book is proof that even a journalist who takes Wall Street’s money can still be appropriately skeptical of Wall Street’s practices. Similarly, writers such as Lewis, Nocera, and Stewart all have established reputations as tough critics of Wall Street. It seems unlikely, in any case, that an investment firm paying a journalist for a speech could be shameless enough to expect the “return favor” of positive coverage. “It’s never occurred to me that anyone is paying me for anything other than the talk, and no one has ever suggested it,” Lewis said. Even so, just as journalists prize inside sources at Wall Street firms, even the most private of firms, knowing there could come a day when scandal darkens their door, have a natural interest in cultivating ties with influential journalists.
Firms may also use speaking gigs to reward a journalist whom they have reason to believe is friendly, or at least not inveterately hostile. In May 2006, The New Yorker published a “Financial Page” column by James Surowiecki arguing that “hedge funds have been far more of a boon to financial markets than a bane,” despite being “easy to hate.” Later he gave a paid speech to a group of hedge-fund clients. He confirmed his participation in the event, which until recently was listed on the website of the Leigh Bureau. “As a rule the talks I give are about the ideas in my books, and aren’t connected to the topics I write about in my column or the arguments I make,” Surowiecki says.
The best answer I heard to why Wall Street hires journalists for speaking gigs came from a hedge-fund manager who is familiar with the practice but doesn’t employ it himself. He says high-profile journalists have a certain glamour or celebrity appeal that makes them a price-effective marketing lure, even when a speaking fee approaches six figures. “The event is surely put on by someone who is inviting his best clients,” this source says. “The firm paying the speaking fee is getting a bunch of high rollers who might invest in their funds—and who surely wouldn’t be there without the speaker. It’s not just a Fareed Zakaria, it is anyone who is interesting and famous.”
Suppose, the hedge-fund manager continued, that the outcome is that just one guest—the manager of a pension plan, say—decides to invest $10 million in a fund of the firm staging the event. Under typical Wall Street practice, the firm will snag a 2 percent management fee—which works out to $200,000 for a $10 million investment. Plus, there’s the prospect of earning a standard 20 percent performance fee on any gains. That’s a pretty nice return.
Martin Wolf, the FT’s chief economics commentator, also gives paid speeches to financial firms. “Speaking engagements have always been an accepted part of the FT’s practice, and my representation by the Leigh Bureau is not in any way hidden,” Wolf told me. “I give my views on aspects of the world economy. I do not see an issue.”

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