Bueller? Bueller?

TheDeal.com executive editor Yvette Kantrow wants to know why so many have criticized The New York Times columnist Ben Stein for questioning the motives of Goldman Sachs and its economist.

Kantrow wrote, “To be sure, part of the negative reaction stems from Stein’s wandering, stream-of-conscious writing style, which befits a columnist who is better known for his turn as Ferris Bueller’s economics teacher than for analytical rigor. The piece’s outlandish call for an investigation of Henry Paulson also rankles. And Goldman’s customers being sophisticated institutions and not Mom and Pop who bet their retirements on Merrill’s Pets.com also made it easier to pooh-pooh Stein’s claims.

“But why is it so hard for the media to accept that Hatzius’ views might be colored by the firm for which he works? As CNBC’s Charles Gasparino, one of Stein’s few defenders, put it, ‘Every Wall Street firm talks its book.’ After all, they exist to make money.

“Clearly, that’s not to say there is a vast conspiracy at Goldman and that Hatzius was explicitly ordered to go negative or forfeit a big, fat bonus. But that doesn’t mean Hatzius isn’t influenced at some level by Goldman’s traders, or its traders aren’t influenced by him. Indeed, it’s hard to imagine how such influence — aka conflict — would not exist at Goldman or any other modern Wall Street firm. It’s simply the nature of a beast that serves buyers, sellers and, increasingly, itself.

“The media, however, can’t seem to accept this. It assumes, or wishes, that the market and its participants are pure of heart and motive; that Wall Street is a game safe for all of us to play, especially post-Spitzer. Well, get real: No one in the market is pure.”

Read more here.