Taibbi's pieces are often brimming with excerpted interviews, specific names and places and trials, details of hearings and indictments. It may be that he is catastrophically misinterpreting these sources, but he obviously makes an attempt to get into the details of what he's talking about. Your criticism of him contains zero examples, and is basically just "trust me, this guy sucks".
I could come up with specifics but that would basically be me trying to make myself look smarter than I am, so instead: why not go track down what Matt Yglesias said about the piece he wrote before this most recent one, or what Felix Salmon wrote about the parking meter story, or what Kevin Drum wrote about the vampire squid piece, or Tim Fernholz at TAP wrote about the Obama piece, or Dan Primack's takedown of the Bain Capital piece? Most of these writers, by the way, are political allies of Matt Taibbi, who said in his Reddit AMA that he checks in with Zero Hedge regularly.
He takes stuff, particularly hearings, trials, and indictments, wildly out of context. As in the example above, procedural and technical judgments (the law doesn't apply to this situation) become moral judgments (the people who lost money are undeserving of relief).
