It is to say, though, that a little empathy would go a long way in this case. Journalists, after all, like most Americans, must be feeling some sense of anger that the government has, in so many ways, and for so long, put corporate interests ahead of average poeple’s. They must be at least a little bit miffed that a portion of their taxes, assuming Hank Paulson gets his way, will go not toward updating the country’s infrastructure or improving its public education system, but toward bailing out mortgage companies. They must be feeling some sense of resentment at the fact that Richard Fuld, who helmed Lehman Brothers into its bankruptcy, is walking away with an estimated $65 million in severance pay. They must be just a little bit pissed off about all this. Everyone else is. So why not let that show? Why not bring a little dose of accountability journalism into their reporting? And why not bring a human element into their narratives?
It’s not often we get to say this, but mainstream reporters could take a cue, in this case, from Bill O’Reilly. On The Factor last week, the self-styled populist declared, “Every American should be furious about the economic meltdown. It’s not your fault, ladies and gentleman. Not my fault. OK? It’s the federal government’s fault.”
This is classic O’Reillian hyperbole, yes, but there’s something refreshing in its authenticity. Something, indeed, reminiscent of Cooper’s Katrina coverage: something urgent and candid and real. When the public trust has been violated, we want our news reporters to be angry about it. Just like we are.
- 1
- 2
Gretchen Morgenson, NYT journalist on Bill Moyers friday night
"I'm actually sick about it. I wouldn't say I'm scared. But I'm kind of distraught at it"
Posted by Linda on Tue 23 Sep 2008 at 07:34 AM
And, as Dean noted last week, much of that treatment has been commendable. But what we have yet to see, in that sober and balanced and occasionally noble coverage, is indignation. Anger. Outrage.
Well Meggan, this is an election year, and this particular crisis has deep roots with the congressional democrats, so naturally the media is shy about covering it (hint hint Barack Hussein Obama has taken loads of money from Freddie and Fannie). After all, look who fought the hardest against the Bush administrations’ attempt to amend the Community Reinvestment Act in 2003. I see a not so subtle attempt by you to frame this as a little guy bailing out the wall street corporate fat cats without recognizing that the homeowners least capable of making their mortgage payments are the ones who are going to lose everything if this bailout doesn’t go though.
Posted by TDC on Tue 23 Sep 2008 at 11:11 AM
Just saw a comment that mentioned that Obama has taken a lot of money from "Freddie and Fannie."I would like to know what real evidence exists to support this claim.The same person, comments that this bailout will keep homeowners from losing their homes.Again,where is the evidence?A fact here is this;the economy is based on confidence, and this brain dead Bush administration has sucked the confidence out of this country like a twenty dollar crack whore on the back streets of Newark.
Posted by Shea Brown on Tue 23 Sep 2008 at 02:07 PM
Just saw a comment that mentioned that Obama has taken a lot of money from "Freddie and Fannie."I would like to know what real evidence exists to support this claim.
Here you go , lots of “D” with Obama on this one, including the Chair of the oversight committee. Or is this not “real” enough for you?
The same person, comments that this bailout will keep homeowners from losing their homes. Again, where is the evidence?
Not all homeowners to be sure, and quite honestly a lot of the people who are being foreclosed on deserve it, they bit off more than they can chew. They as well as the companies who lent them the money should all go down. But for the more marginal cases, no one will be able to get credit to refinance for more favorable terms unless the banks are willing to write them new mortgages. If there is no bailout, credit will get very thigh very fast.
A fact here is this; the economy is based on confidence, and this brain dead Bush administration has sucked the confidence out of this country like a twenty dollar crack whore on the back streets of Newark.
That’s an interesting interpretation considering that the Bush administration was well ahead of the curve in this one, to bad Obama n’ friends saw it differently.
Posted by TDC on Tue 23 Sep 2008 at 02:24 PM
TDC could care less about Fannie Mae or Freddy Mac; or McCain's campaign's own ties to those organizations, his responsibility for the meltdown, or his role in the Keating Five.
TDC's voting for....someone else. No one. He's just courageously speaking out against Obama...for no reason at all. After all, TDC's totally unbiased...at least in his own mind.
Posted by circusboy on Tue 23 Sep 2008 at 05:38 PM
You are right, I own my own home so I could care less, in so much as it does not directly affect me. As far as or McCain's campaign's ties to Freddie and Fannie, the open secrets database speaks for itself. Who was it, for the record, who has the #2 spot on that donor list?
Oh, yes and for the record I will be voting for McCain. He may not be ideal, but when comparing him to a inflated media created hack Chicago machine politician like Barack Hussein Obama, there is no contest.
Posted by TDC on Tue 23 Sep 2008 at 06:57 PM
McCain's much more involved with F & F than Obama was. Everyone but you seems to know it. Rick Davis' role makes what Obama took look like Monopoly money.
As for the Chicago political machine junk, maybe you could try to convince a woman you work with that watches Dancing With the Stars regularly. People that read, not so much . Daley's they guy McCain called "the greatest US commerce secretary ever". Have fun defending McCain, bubba, I will enjoy watching it. I can't wait for Max Boot quotes!
Posted by circusboy on Tue 23 Sep 2008 at 07:52 PM
You mean a firm that one of McCain’s advisors worked for is more involved in F&F don’t you? And who was it who has taken more money in the past 3 years from F&F than most congressmen have taken in a lifetime from F&F?
Despite Factcheck’s laughable defense, Obama’s relationship with the corrupt Chicago machine political scene can be summed up with the following: Yassir massa Stroger, yassir massa Jones, yassir massa Daley, yassir massa Mell, I’ll toe the line for a Senate seat! Reading Factchek is on this subject is about as credible as hearing boy wonder and mob money launderer Alexi Giannoulias personally testifying to Obama the other night on the TV news.
It going to be so fun watching you all pout when Obama loses. Better stock up on the paxil now boy.
Posted by TDC on Tue 23 Sep 2008 at 08:36 PM
Oh, and since we are on the subject, guess who said this in 2006 as part of a push for F&F reform legislation (hint there is no Hussein in the name):
The OFHEO report also states that Fannie Mae used its political power to lobby Congress in an effort to interfere with the regulator's examination of the company's accounting problems. This report comes some weeks after Freddie Mac paid a record $3.8 million fine in a settlement with the Federal Election Commission and restated lobbying disclosure reports from 2004 to 2005. These are entities that have demonstrated over and over again that they are deeply in need of reform.
Posted by TDC on Tue 23 Sep 2008 at 08:44 PM
Davis isn't an advisor. He runs McCain's campaign. And you can't argue your way out of McCain's role in deregulation throughout his career. He's much more entrenched, and splitting hairs won't save your argument. You're wasting your time. And McCain doesn't have to get his campaign funds straight from F & F: he just gets it from other people (I think I saw that two dozen F & F lobbyists raised 12 million for his campaign).
As for Obama, was he taking money to help Fanny Mae give out and resell bad loans? Can you prove that's why he took contributions? If you don't understand it, that you are alluding to some unknown thing Obama must have did (wink wink) rather than things your candidate actually did, then really there is nothing to say. If there's corruption involved in campaign funds alone, then McCain must be more corrupt when it comes to taking funds from AIG (check your opensecrets source).
McCain probably wanted to 'reform' F & F by privatizing them. However, even if he had the best interest of America at heart, that bill wouldn't have made a dent in the subprime mortgage crisis. So no points there.
Making racist obscure statements do nothing to back your claim about Obama's link to the Chicago machine, or specifically, anything he might have done. You have proved nothing by disparaging the source.
By the way, I could care less about Obama's middle name. The fact that you have to go there makes you sound like some Ann Coulter wannabe. But what do you do when you've long run out of facts? You get your information from Hot Air. Sadly, that's all it is.
Posted by circusboy on Tue 23 Sep 2008 at 09:50 PM
Davis isn't an advisor. He runs McCain's campaign. And you can't argue your way out of McCain's role in deregulation throughout his career. He's much more entrenched, and splitting hairs won't save your argument.
Rememebr, its not “deregulation” its reregulation. I’m surprised that your degree in comparative literature from Vasser or Smith or wherever didn’t give you the noodle to figure that one out.
As for Obama, was he taking money to help Fanny Mae give out and resell bad loans? Can you prove that's why he took contributions?
Can you prove Obama isn’t a Muslim? That’s right, didn’t think so, so please dispense with your bullshit questions.
If there's corruption involved in campaign funds alone, then McCain must be more corrupt when it comes to taking funds from AIG (check your opensecrets source).
Wrongo jackass, Dodd is #1 followed by Obama for taking AIG’s money. You just got lazy with that one … too easy.
McCain probably wanted to 'reform' F & F by privatizing them.
I thought F & F was private? Wasn’t that why they were all over Palin the other day? Does this mean she was right?
However, even if he had the best interest of America at heart, that bill wouldn't have made a dent in the subprime mortgage crisis. So no points there.
You should wipe the Obama induced ejaculation off your crystal ball, I don’t think it works.
Making racist obscure statements do nothing to back your claim about Obama's link to the Chicago machine, or specifically, anything he might have done. You have proved nothing by disparaging the source.
Yassa massa!
You get your information from Hot Air. Sadly, that's all it is.
Right is right buddy boy, dont matter where they come from.
Posted by TDC on Tue 23 Sep 2008 at 10:49 PM
TDC, weren't you linking to factcheck.org when they ran a story debunking rumors about Palin? But when they turn to a story vindicating Obama in any way, they suddenly lack any credibility. Interesting.
The debate about who received more donations from F&F seems a bit misguided here, as neither connection really tells us anything about the candidate. It seems silly to carry on about Obama's donations when McCain has equally "damning" connections. The whole argument seems to me a colossal distraction from uncovering root problems and assigning real blame. The unfortunate truth for McCain is that he is on record, year after year, supporting the deregulation that made this crisis possible, and proudly so. The idea that rooting through some of Obama's donation receipts absolves him of some responsibility is a fantasy borne of the horse race, and the idea that the media as a whole is greeting the story with muted outrage out of some desire to protect Obama might be one of the most absurd things I've ever heard. You are at war with reality. The reason McCain gets more criticism on this score is simply because he is more in the wrong.
It's the most obvious statement one can make right now, but apparently it requires making: George W. Bush has been president for the last 8 years. He comes from the same political party as John McCain, and the two of them, in concert with other Republicans, have pursued a economic policy that has led us to ultimate disaster. You can stoke irrational fears about Obama as a frightening machine-made robo-politician all you want (most neutral observers would find your "yassa massa" characterization as false as it is racist), but even as a caricature it pales in comparison to the very real prospect of an unchecked continuation of the status quo.
Posted by Evan Woodward on Tue 23 Sep 2008 at 11:22 PM
Can you prove Obama isn’t a Muslim? That’s right, didn’t think so, so please dispense with your bullshit questions.
One of the best argument responses ever. Ha ha ha ha. Ever! Screw college, how about taking a high school logic class!
Palin. You're right, she's a friggin genius. Criticism of her (at least by me) is off the table! She deserves to be VP, I've never refueled in Ireland. And I definitely can't see Russia from my house! But I do have a passport...
Open Secrets
Do some reading about the Reform Institute's donations from AIG if you weren't really for "McCain, right or wrong". What a weak rebuttal. You're actually going to vote on that?
Too bad Will County is going for Obama.
Posted by circusboy on Tue 23 Sep 2008 at 11:33 PM
Ha ha ha.
He's still getting paid.
Posted by circusboy on Tue 23 Sep 2008 at 11:48 PM
It going to be so fun watching you all pout when Obama loses. Better stock up on the paxil now boy.
By the way, have you seen this exclusive video of Palin? You're right, so much fun.
Posted by circusboy on Thu 25 Sep 2008 at 04:34 PM
I heard Obama say on the radio that he had called the Congressional "leadership" and offered to make himself available from the campaign trail if there was "anything he could do to help".
This guy is right out in front of the financial crisis, isn't he? He'll be a great president, as long as he can check in with his "leaders" to see if anything needs to be done, that is.
Posted by padikiller on Thu 25 Sep 2008 at 07:26 PM
I heard Obama say on the radio that he had called the Congressional "leadership" and offered to make himself available from the campaign trail if there was "anything he could do to help".
If he had stated anything different you would have said he declared himself President and you'd have called him "The One". He's not President yet, is he? Or have you already thrown in the towel after watching the Palin/McCain ticket the last 24 hours?
Posted by circusboy on Thu 25 Sep 2008 at 07:51 PM