You are viewing the NationofChange archives. For the latest news and actions, visit the new www.NationofChange.org.
Sunday, October 26, 2014 / PROGRESSIVE JOURNALISM FOR POSITIVE ACTION
Get Email Updates | Log In | Register

New York Times’ Andrew Ross Sorkin Sneers at Wall Street Protesters, Estimates Only 80 There

Lee Fang
Think Progress / News Report
Published: Saturday 1 October 2011
According to a top Wall Street reporter at the New York Times, the protests don’t appear to really exist — and if they do exist, perhaps only 80 people have shown up.
Article image

The Occupy Wall Street protests have grown every day since they began two weeks ago. In the past 24 hours, they have expanded to Chicago, Boston, Los Angeles, and other major cities as thousands have gathered to demand economic justice and an end to big bank dominated politics. But according to a top Wall Street reporter at the New York Times, the protests don’t appear to really exist — and if they do exist, perhaps only 80 people have shown up.

Speaking on CNBC’s Squawk Box program yesterday, Andrew Ross Sorkin, a financial columnist and editor of the New York Times’ Dealbook blog, a special business section devoted to covering Wall Street, condescendingly dismissed the protests:

SORKIN: Do we think about the–Not to be so America-centric, but do we think that the whole Wall Street protest is overdone, real, not real? Were there really a lot of people down there? Were there a lot? I could never tell.

COHOST: Well uh they arrested 80 people. Right?

SORKIN: Right. But I dont know if that was like all 80 of them.

Watch it:

For the record, thousands have demonstrated against Wall Street and the numbers are growing.

A reader of the Dealbook might reach the same conclusion as Sorkin, that the protests are close to nonexistent. A search of his website reveals a single two sentence mention of them on September 20. In sharp contrast with Sorkin’s snide coverage of the protests, the regular news section of the New York Times has much more thoughtful coverage. New York Times reporters N. R. Kleinfield and Cara Buckley have a piece in the A1 section of the newspaper today that includes interviews with the protesters and a look back on how the effort was organized.

Sorkin, the author of “Too Big To Fail,” has faced scrutiny over the years for his cozy relationship with powerful hedge fund managers and big bank executives. Media reporter Gabriel Sherman covered Sorkin’s sometimes “fawning quality” for powerful financial titans:

While he has written critically about the financial mandarins he covers, a fawning quality can ooze into his prose that some other Timespeople find unbecoming. “Over at the power table is Lloyd Blankfein of Goldman Sachs, or should I call you the man who can do no wrong?” (December 30, 2007) … “Trying to defend Stephen A. Schwarzman, Wall Street’s whipping boy of the moment, seems like a lose-lose proposition … But hey, somebody has got to go to bat for Mr. Schwarzman. Might as well be me” (July 29, 2007) … Or the second time the word subprime appears in his column, two months before Bear Stearns blew up, when credit and real-estate markets had already begun their steep nosedive. “I know many of you aren’t in a party mood,” Sorkin wrote. “Things were going great until summer, when the subprime mortgage thing really took us down a notch—and ruined more than a few golf games.”

Indeed, the Dealbook has made a habit of defending the banks. The Dealbook dismissed perhaps the biggest bank scandal this year, the revelation by a whistleblower alleging that revolving door officials at the Securities and Exchange Commission had illegally deleted thousands of documents relating to financial fraud investigations, including cases probing Bernie Madoff and Goldman Sachs. The Dealbook also mocked the ThinkProgress scoop revealing that a Goldman Sachs lobbying official had burrowed into the House Oversight Committee and has led efforts to stop regulators from imposing new rules on big banks (including Goldman Sachs). A Dealbook reporter scoffed, writing that the story “isn’t so scandalous after all.”

According to New York Magazine, Sorkin is one of the highest paid reporters at the New York Times and “earns $250,000, including a bonus that is based, in part, on the financial performance of the various DealBook properties.” As Rolling Stone’s Matt Taibbi has reported, Sorkin’s Dealbook division at the New York Times was launched using an unorthodox sponsorship deal with Barclays Capital, Goldman Sachs, Sotheby’s, and Tata Consulting Service.



Author pic
ABOUT Lee Fang

Lee Fang is an investigative researcher and contributing author for NationofChange. A resident of Sacramento, CA, Lee has written for the Boston Globe, The Nation, and ThinkProgress.org.

Hey we better call the NY

Hey we better call the NY District Attorney. The police arrested 700 people. Clearly they grabbed 620 of them in error!! Sorkin can testify at the trials that only 80 were protesters.
How is it that the venerable New York Times ("All the news that's fit to print") would allow this blind fool to stay on board???

Would someone please tell

Would someone please tell this incompetent corporate shill for Wall Street to just shut up? He not only doesn't know what he's talking about but he has also lost all credibility for his book, "Too Big to Fail". The fact that the New York Times pays him anything should be a disgrace to them. Send him this link:

http://www.alternet.org/newsandviews/article/674832/%22these_cops_were_o...

Sorkin is obviously a true

Sorkin is obviously a true investigative journalist. Real competition to the likes of Christiae Amanpou-HA! he doesn't deserve to share the title"reporter." afraid of vetting his Cole Hahns scuffed by going down to meet the rabble? What a joke! How dos he keep his job? There ARE real reporters out there! Oh-that's right, papers probably owned by Koch bros or someone in same fraternity! NEWS-Sorkin! It's what's happening in the streets!

This little punk Sorkin is

This little punk Sorkin is not an issue here, the issues are how far this corporate media (NYT) can go shameless; how far our freedom of press could get an absolute joke; and how much stupid are those people whom believe NYT is voice of liberals?

Yes, I suppose they are just

Yes, I suppose they are just a few " nattering nabobs of negativism" like the miniscule consortium that stopped the Viet - Nam fiasco and exposed the Republican President of the time as a crook. They are not to be confused with the small, disgruntled cell of dissidents who demonstrated against the Republican convention in New York. That laughably puny gang took five and a half to six HOURS to pass by Madison Square Garden filling the width of 6th avenue. Then there was the four or five folk who filled the area around and in the capitol building of Wisconsin. This idiot is going to be writing for the Pennysaver under an assumed name in the near future as the "Grey Lady" descends into the quality of good paper to use for fish wrap.
Lee baby, you got the spirit, take it from a Hendrix era politico. Keep on keepin'.

Deliciously spot on!

Deliciously spot on!

YES!! Good one, Byronator!

YES!! Good one, Byronator! roflmao :-)

This twerp knows which side

This twerp knows which side his bread is buttered on. As such, we can choose not to listen to him, cover his @sslinking diatribes, or give him any mind at all.

Things are getting truly

Things are getting truly dangerous and out of hand... We scoff at Kadaffi when he says "everybody still loves me"... when his cities are burning and under siege... and here's Sorkin saying there were 80 insignificant protestors when we can see pictures of hundreds or thousands!!! What's happening to our country???

Sorkin is just a stooge, and

Sorkin is just a stooge, and the NYT is just a neoliberal rag, and its loosing credibility as we speak.

This Sorkin creep seems to be

This Sorkin creep seems to be another Jayson Blair. For those who do not remember, Blair was an NYT reporter a few years back who claimed to be covering a story in West Virginia when, in fact, he never left his New York apartment. So Sorkin pontificates about #Occupy Wall Street without ever leaving his office and going there.

Three names is the trademark

Three names is the trademark of the serial killer. This little puke has potential.

Yes, yes, oh my goodness,

Yes, yes, oh my goodness, YES!! Keep up the good work, Byronator...

roflmao :-)

I didn't want to laugh at

I didn't want to laugh at this, but I can't help it.

Oh, dear, I'd better drop one of my names.

Signed,
BlessUs
or
BlessAll
or
UsAll

" It's no surprise that the

" It's no surprise that the Romney campaign is raising money from Wall Street by saying they want to repeal consumer protections and allow Wall Street to write its own rules," KEEPING IT HONEST: Wall Street, a key contributor to Obama in 2008, seems to be switching allegiances.
" Hum.. I wonder why? Maybe the gang on Wall Street does not wish to alienate “their” representatives? Mr. Boehner, Cantor, McCarthy and Ryan and Senator McConnell and his 43 obstructionists in the senate that are provided their campaign funds! After all, this same Wall Street Gang were the direct recipients of trillion dollar tax payer bailout with no conditions and used it some of it for bonuses! According to Senator Bernie Sanders, it is now clear that the Republicans /hypocrites made pledges that they are for their “only” plan of continuing its Class War against the middle Class to protect their rich Millionaires on Wall street and Billions like the Gover Norquest, Russ Limbaugh, Rupert Murdock and others like the Koch Brothers that provide them their campaign funds! Their plan was never about creating American jobs for the unemployed middle class! LET'S PUBLICLY LIST THE NAME OF EVERY POLITICIAN AND WALL STREET GIVER SO AMERICAN CAN KNOW WHO IS ON "TAKE" AND SELLING MIDDLE AMERICA OUT!

" It's no surprise that the

" It's no surprise that the Romney campaign is raising money from Wall Street by saying they want to repeal consumer protections and allow Wall Street to write its own rules," KEEPING IT HONEST: Wall Street, a key contributor to Obama in 2008, seems to be switching allegiances.
" Hum.. I wonder why? Maybe the gang on Wall Street does not wish to alienate “their” representatives? Mr. Boehner, Cantor, McCarthy and Ryan and Senator McConnell and his 43 obstructionists in the senate that are provided their campaign funds! After all, this same Wall Street Gang were the direct recipients of trillion dollar tax payer bailout with no conditions and used it some of it for bonuses! According to Senator Bernie Sanders, it is now clear that the Republicans /hypocrites made pledges that they are for their “only” plan of continuing its Class War against the middle Class to protect their rich Millionaires on Wall street and Billions like the Gover Norquest, Russ Limbaugh, Rupert Murdock and others like the Koch Brothers that provide them their campaign funds! Their plan was never about creating American jobs for the unemployed middle class! LET'S PUBLICLY LIST THE NAME OF EVERY POLITICIAN AND WALL STREET GIVER SO AMERICAN CAN KNOW WHO IS ON "TAKE" AND SELLING MIDDLE AMERICA OUT!

This Sorkin creature is such

This Sorkin creature is such an obvious and well-known liar
that he didn't even deserve this article. It just puts his picture
out where everyone can see it and see how nonsensical his
comments are. Another poster was right, during the French
Revolution, if the fishwives hadn't gotten hin, Madame La
Guillotine would have.

I hope this guy isn't related to Aaron Sorkin, the creator of
the tv series "West Wing". If he is , what a disgrace to the
Sorkin family he must be.

Why does Al Quaida need

Why does Al Quaida need Awaliki's recruitment abilities when it has egregious US actions in the Middle East to recruit for it?

Are you saying Andrew Ross

Are you saying Andrew Ross Sorkin is a recruiter for Al Quaida? He certainly is egregious enough.

Sorkin is a tool of the Wall

Sorkin is a tool of the Wall St. crowd....what would one expect him to say...the Truth?

If this stuff about Sorkin is

If this stuff about Sorkin is true, get him out of there! We are trying to get at the Truth, not waste time listening to arrogant elitist rubbish!

Actually, if this is the kind

Actually, if this is the kind of puerile swill he produces, he doesn't "earn" anything.

I think it's past time to recover the language...

The Wall Street leeches and banksters, these sycophants for power and nearly every CEO in the nation doesn't "earn" sh*t...

They steel it from the Commons...and then pretend that they invented or created it.

Sorkin is a snide, effete,

Sorkin is a snide, effete, little punk. He was cheering for Wall St. right up to the day it went belly-up.

Sorkin is a snide, effete,

Sorkin is a snide, effete, little punk. He was cheering for Wall St. right up to the day it went belly-up.

He sounds like an arrogant

He sounds like an arrogant spoiled little rich brat.

If this were the French

If this were the French revolution Sorkin would have been the victim of the Parisian fish women.

there are none so blind as

there are none so blind as those who refuse to see

What does that Sorkin guy

What does that Sorkin guy have three names?

This whiny little field mouse

This whiny little field mouse gets $250,000+ per year? His tactics aren't even particularly innovative. The news media used the same tactics during the Viet Nam demonstrations. Sneer at their silly clothes, their silly signs and banners, and grossly underreport their numbers. Where are all the real old-time newsmen gone? In my days in a newspaper composing room such crap as this little prick writes was sneered at as "puff pieces" which were generally considered free advertising for a local merchant that the advertising department was trying to sell paid advertising. $250,000 was most likely more than the whole editorial department earned and even the worst hack in the department could write a better story.

His real name is Andrew

His real name is Andrew Panderer Sorkin.

Comment with your Facebook account



Comment with your Disqus account

Top Stories

comments powered by Disqus

NationofChange works to educate, inform, and fight power with people, corruption with community.

If you would like to stay up to date with the best in independent, filter-free journalism, updates on upcoming events to attend, and more, enter your email below:

7 Compelling Reasons Why You Should Support NationofChange

Our readers often tell us why they’ve decided to step up and become supporters. Here are some of the top reasons people are giving.

1. You’re keeping independent journalism alive
The corporate owned media has proven that it can’t be trusted. In a media landscape wrought with spin and corruption, NationofChange stands in very scarce company.

2. You’re sticking it to the rich, powerful, and corrupt
When you have money in this country you can get away with damn near anything, and they do. NationofChange isn’t afraid to expose these criminals no matter how powerful they are.

3. Your donation is 100% tax-deductible
NationofChange is a 501(c)3 charity. People tend to assume that many other organizations are (most nonprofits are NOT) but it’s that 501(c)3 status is a bit more rare than you think.

Read the rest...