That just ain’t how it works anymore.

Tofel wants ProPublica’s work to speak for itself, but he doesn’t want your work to speak for itself.

Readers want to ask questions of reporters and argue with them. Tofel believes this is a waste of resources. In fact, it’s a squandering of credibility.

You’re right, Josh, that readers want transparency. In my blog, I occasionally explain why I chose to write about a particular topic because I think readers deserve to know. Knowing the metastory helps them to understand the story better. I write about mortgages, and in my blog I’m up-front about my liberal, pro-regulation stance. Tofel being a traditional kind of guy, he probably thinks it’s scandalous and somehow unethical to explain to readers where I’m coming from philosophically. But he would not be able to convince today’s savvy news consumers that his way is right and mine is wrong.

“Tofel told me during our call: “The surest judge of whether a professional has a serious conflict of interest is that the client thinks they do. The client made it clear on the record.””

The first sentence here is contentious, as you explained very well. The second sentence here is downright false. At no point in the article does anybody from California’s Treasury claim that Goldman had any kind of conflict of interest; all of the criticisms from the Treasury office could have been made of any bank putting out such research, whether or not California was a client. The conflict-of-interest spin came from ProPublica and from a professor at Columbia, not from California. (Not on the record from California, anyway.)

The closest that we get to an on-the-record allegation of a conflict of interest is this:

“Heal said he was surprised by Goldman’s actions. “Goldman Sachs has a reputation as behaving in a responsible manner . . . and I don’t think this is consistent with their traditions,” he said.”

What the “this” is referring to is unclear. Is it a conflict of interest? Or is it just the fact that Goldman put out negative research on California? Tofel thinks it’s obvious it’s the former. It isn’t.