The Rolling Stone's sprawling take-down of Bank of America is being cited in publications around the country as possibly the most critical piece on Bank of America in the bank's history.
While it has not generated the amount of attention that the now-infamous "Why I Am Leaving Goldman Sachs" op-ed that appeared in The New York Times earlier this week did, the magazine article, which mocks the bank's history and says the bank has tried to deceive every class of its customers, has sent its share of waves around the business and political world.
The article lampoons Bank of America and Wachovia's dueling skyscraper projects as a phallic arms race and dismisses Hugh McColl as a "strutting Southern peacock" determined to tear down the nation's banking laws. The piece also accuses the bank of "every kind of lending fraud imaginable" as it details the numerous allegations against the bank since the financial crisis.
It also passes blame to the government, which the author asserts bailed out the "admitted felon" numerous times.
Business Insider calls the piece "the harshest thing we've ever read about Bank Of America." Liberal outlet AMERICAblog called the piece a "must read," turning the issue political by calling President Bush and President Obama's support for the financial system an assault on the Constitution.
Rolling Stone reporter Matt Taibbi has become known for this type of piece. Two years ago, he called Goldman Sachs a "great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money."
Fierce Finance opined that this piece won't gain the same notoriety, but called it a distinctive take on the massive wave of lawsuits against the Charlotte bank.