As comfortable Wolf is about the ethics of giving paid speeches to financial firms, for other financial journalists the matter is one of growing angst. These folks worry that their readers and viewers will think they are too close to Wall Street, even if their coverage of the financial industry is hard-nosed and penetrating.
As a result, they weigh each invitation carefully. Take the case of Gretchen Morgenson, an assistant business and financial editor and a financial columnist at The New York Times who won a Pulitzer Prize in 2002 for her “trenchant and incisive” coverage of Wall Street. On occasion she gives paid speeches to universities, as Times policy permits, and sometimes she appears, for free, at financial-industry events—but not without doing due diligence. “I did recently participate in a one-hour question-and-answer session about the state of the economy and markets with about 50 clients of First Long Island Investors, a small, local registered investment advisory firm,” she said in an e-mail. “It does business only in New York and Florida, has 200 or so accounts, and does not conduct securities underwriting or trading for its own account. As such, it would not be a firm I would cover. I received no honorarium for my participation in this session and before I agreed to participate, I checked that the firm had not been subject to any regulatory or disciplinary actions.”
Another prominent financial journalist, who does give paid speeches at Wall Street events, also runs the traps. “I don’t want to be speaking at events run by disreputable organizations—that’s a first filter,” he said.
Are readers really monitoring these journalists that closely? Yes. A financial writer at a leading news organization that bans speeches to for-profit firms told me that, in the current environment, readers are intensely suspicious of how journalists are covering Wall Street. “If I write anything that is even remotely positive about Wall Street organizations, they will send me an e-mail saying, ‘You’re in the pocket of these people,’” this journalist says. “If you were actually in the pocket”—defined, he says, by taking money from the firms for speeches—“that would a real problem.”
Given the varying circumstances and different opinions on the matter, what should the rules be in journalism on speaking fees—taken from Wall Street or anyone else? Robert Dowling, a former assistant managing editor for BusinessWeek who at one point supervised ethics policies, recommends public disclosure—of a journalist’s appearances as well as fees. “It seems hypocritical for the press to criticize Newt Gingrich for taking $1.6 million from Freddie Mac but not tell readers where you as a journalist are earning outside income—and how much,” he says.
I’m certainly no purist on this question. After I wrote a book, published in 2009, about America’s role in the world, I actively sought to give speeches on the university market on this theme, and I still, on occasion, as a freelancer, give paid speeches to nonprofits. I recently was awarded a $1,000 Poynter fellowship to deliver a day’s worth of talks to students at Yale on how media cover Russia and on topics in my book. Such talks can be learning experiences for me—just as Michael Lewis suggested—and there doesn’t appear to be any motive for the university other than to stir thought and debate.
Nor is it evident that Wall Street’s money for speaking engagements has kept journalists, including at outlets with accommodating policies, such as the Financial Times, from providing tough coverage of the financial industry.
Still, the acceptance of speaking fees from Wall Street does strike me as a real problem for journalism. It is a dilemma, most of all, for journalists assigned to the financial industry, because the public has a right to expect that this coverage will not be informed by anything other than the journalist’s reporting and analysis. Any financial journalist—whether a “straight” newsperson or opinion writer—who takes money from Wall Street is inviting skepticism and even cynicism, fairly or not, about the work he or she is doing.

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