In this morning's New York Times, Andrew Ross Sorkin treats us to a spectacularly dishonest defense of the A.I.G. bonuses. In his article, The Case for paying the A.I.G. Bonuses, Mr. Sorkin solemnly intones:
But from their point of view, the “fundamental value” in question here is the sanctity of contracts.
That may strike many people as a bit of convenient legalese, but maybe there is something to it. If you think this economy is a mess now, imagine what it would look like if the business community started to worry that the government would start abrogating contracts left and right.
He concludes
But in the meantime, despite how offensive and painful it might be, let’s honor the contracts.
This comes not four months after he lectured one Kandy O'Neill:
When you read a line like that you might sympathize with her, but then you realize that nothing can be accomplished without bankruptcy. Ms. O’Neill: your company is asking the taxpayers — many of whom don’t have health care coverage — to pay your salary and health insurance.
Of course, Kandy O'Neill is an assembler for General Motors. Contracts may be holy writ (the literal definition of the revolting phrase "sanctity of contracts"), but apparently only executive contracts.
I'm sure Mr. Sorkin will claim that the difference is that he was encouraging GM to go into bankruptcy in order to break its contracts. To see what nonsense this is, read the two articles linked here. In the former, Mr. Sorkin is deeply deferential to the A.I.G. executives; he notes the danger of that "talent" being "scoop[ed] up". In the latter, he's actively cheerleading for a GM bankruptcy.
If Mr. Sorkin's goals were to comfort the comfortable and aflict the aflicted, he's doing marvelously. If he had any pretensions to being a journalist, he's given them up—he's a corporate shill and nothing more. For shame, NYT.