I like this discussion. I would label it as trustworthy and newsworthy because it drew in multiple sources, quoted people from brief interviews, and brought to the table a rounded discussion. I dont think there was any noticeable bias in any direction due to the author highlighting the fact that Obama went down a "well trodden and well paid path" while also providing examples of how past administration officials often take this road. I'm personally somewhat disappointed, but that is erroneous regarding the article's trustworthiness.

This is a very significant story because it demonstrates much of the quid pro quo between Washington politicians and Wall Street. The article does a good job presenting both sides of the argument, allowing the reader to determine for themselves how shady Obama's paid Wall Street speeches are at this time. It is not surprising, but it could be considered the final act of his presidency and it only allows people to draw connections to his handling of the 2008-2009 economic recession and lack of consequences for big banks and Wall Street executives.

Need to catch up on what Mr. Obama is doing now? This article explains it well. I have no reason to disbelieve Obama is speaking to financial institutions given the variety of quotes from executives at these institutions. However, the author, Max Abelson, when mentioning how much money Obama is to receive, sites multiple times "according to a person familiar with the arrangement." All around trusted article but was hoping for better sourcing when it comes to the the money being paid.