Analysis of Mathew Taibbi’s Article

Mathew Taibbi's article, "The $9 Billion Witness: Meet JPMorgan Chase's Worst Nightmare," is a fascinating and eye-opening piece about a white-collar crime. It was published in Rolling Stone on November 6, 2014. The article tells the story of Alayne Fleishmann, a securities lawyer and former Chase bank employee, who blew the whistle on a huge corruption scandal involving top officials at JP Morgan Chase Bank.

The author dives deep into how this white-collar crime was planned and carried out, showing how senior government officials and institutions helped cover it up. Fleishmann saw the crime happening while she was working as a quality control manager at the bank. She even wrote two letters to senior bank officials warning them about the serious consequences (Taibbi, 2014). She was ready to provide credible evidence to bring the wrongdoers to justice. But the Attorney General and the SEC worked with Jamie Dimon, the bank's CEO, to stop Fleishmann from revealing what she knew.

Taibbi uses rhetorical devices like situational irony and metaphor to get his message across. He aims at the general public, wanting to inform them about one of the biggest white-collar crimes in American history. The article exposes many insider trading activities that were hidden from the public.

This essay will look at different elements of Taibbi’s article.

Rhetorical Devices Used

Taibbi uses various rhetorical devices to convey his message and stir emotions in his readers. Situational irony is seen in the article, especially with the Attorney General, Eric Holder, the court system, and the SEC deciding to help cover up the crime. These institutions are supposed to ensure justice and proper conduct, but they did the opposite, blocking Fleishmann from revealing crucial evidence (Taibbi, 2014).

Another example of situational irony is when the Chase bank board increased the compensation of a man who oversaw the largest regulatory fine ever by 74 percent, taking it to around $20 million (Taibbi, 2014).

The author also uses a simile in the article, comparing financial products to soybeans in processed food. He says, "Like soybeans in processed food, these synthesized financial products wound up in everything" (Taibbi).

Taibbi uses a metaphor, comparing the loans sold by Chase bank to rotten dog meat, to show how bad they were. He also uses rhetorical questions to emphasize his points, like when he asks, "How bad were they?" (Taibbi, 2014).

Another device he uses is litotes to highlight how vague and flimsy the ten and a half-page "statement of facts" issued by the bank was. According to Taibbi, the document was so short that a first-year law student could read it in the time it takes to eat a tuna sandwich. He also points out that it was so vague that even a moderately intelligent person could read it and not realize anyone had done anything wrong (Taibbi, 2014).

Target Audience

The author aims at the general public to reveal important information about a major corruption scandal in American history. A lot of details about this scandal were kept secret, and Taibbi wants to expose them through Fleishmann's story.

For example, Chase Bank CEO Jamie Dimon agreed to pay $9 billion in fines without going to trial. The Attorney General played a key role in stopping the disclosure of JP Morgan's dirty deeds, and the public was kept from seeing the "sweetheart deal." A large part of the money ($7 billion) paid by the bank as fines wasn't seen as a penalty but as a tax write-off. According to Taibbi, this settlement put American taxpayers on the hook for about a quarter of Chase's check (Taibbi, 2014).

Taibbi wants to make the public aware of how hard it is to charge senior executives in big companies involved in fraud. The institutions meant to bring criminals to justice are actually covering for them.

In conclusion, Taibbi’s article is both enlightening and fascinating, detailing one of the biggest corruption scandals in American history. He avoids using complex financial and legal jargon to make it easier to understand, as not everyone has a background in those fields. The article is detailed and explains everything clearly. However, it is quite lengthy, and the author sometimes goes off-topic by including personal details about the whistleblower, Alayne Fleishmann.