The press has given short shrift to an important report by the Congressional Oversight Panel on the government’s bailout efforts.
I can’t quite figure out why. It’s got the requisite elements for a well-played story: news, credibility, conflict, broad interest—and it pushes for transparency, something that should be of deep interest to the media. But the Washington Post ran a brief wire story online only, the Journal gave its wire story 220 words, and the NYT didn’t bother. It got little pickup in other papers, either.
Bloomberg gives it a little run. Tell me if this is worth a story, from the wire service’s lede:
A congressional panel overseeing the U.S. financial rescue suggested that getting rid of top executives and liquidating problem banks may be a better way to solve the economic crisis.
Sounds juicy to me! Further:
The Congressional Oversight Panel, in a report released yesterday, also said the Treasury may be relying on too rosy an economic scenario to guide its $700 billion bailout, and declared that the success of the program after six months is “mixed.”
The panel’s chief, Harvard Law prof Elizabeth Warren, is pushing Treasury to give more information to the public on what it’s doing with our money:
Warren, in an interview on Bloomberg Television, said yesterday that while “things may be getting a little better” under Geithner, the Treasury still needs to be more transparent about how it is spending the taxpayers’ money.“We still have a long way to go, a very long way,” she said.
Yeah, we do.
Still, it said a bank liquidation would be “least likely to sap the patience of taxpayers” and “provides clarity relatively quickly” to the markets.
“Allowing institutions to fail in a structured manner supervised by appropriate regulators offers a clearer exit strategy than allowing those institutions to drift into government control piecemeal,” the report said.
Reuters points out that the panel looks at the core issue of what these toxic assets are really worth and finds that Treasury may have the wrong idea.
But if the rock-bottom prices of toxic assets today reflect a fundamental, lasting shift in values, the picture changes.
“It is possible that Treasury’s approach fails to acknowledge the depth of the current downturn and the degree to which the low valuation of troubled assets accurately reflects their worth,” the panel’s report said.
Some on the panel disagreed with the findings, but that’s going to happen on any bipartisan panel.
And the American press was scooped on this by the British Observer over the weekend, and the press doesn’t like that.
Get over it.
This is a non-administration official source of information raising important and controversial points on what’s going on with hundreds of billions of dollars in taxpayer funds—not to mention the economy.
That deserves a wider airing.

TalkingPointsMemo was all over this story yesterday. Seriously, legacy national press did not cover this because Politico didn't cover it and there was no link on Drudge. Therefore they either didn't know about it, or didn't think it was important. They have no independent news judgement whatsoever. It sounds overly cycnical to say that, but sadly it is the case.
Here's TPM's story
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/04/warren_fire_top_management_at_aig_and_citi.php
#1 Posted by Tom, CJR on Thu 9 Apr 2009 at 10:12 AM
THIS IS NOT GETTING THE COVERAGE IT DESERVES FOR ONE REASON: The *SCUM* are the agents of the corporate state which has already determined the appropriate narrative for this 'crisis,' and firing wealthy elites from their sinecures is not part of that narrative. It does not include reporting on "news" which does NOT support that narrative, especially when the source of that 'news' has already been labeled a "non-Serious" person by the elites who are being criticized.
(*SCUM* = "SoCalledUnbiasedMedia", i.e., the CorpoRat Press)
#2 Posted by Woody, CJR on Thu 9 Apr 2009 at 11:22 AM
This is how it works:
1) Mike Allen and Politico write up the stuff that interests them in the "Win the Day" strategy.
2) Drudge links stuff that reflects poorly on the administration.
3) Scarborough picks up the stuff on Allen's Playbook and Drudge that he and his bimbo sidekick want to opine about.
4) The cable channels take their cue on the focus of the day from those three sources, and play them all day.
5)The print political reporters and editors, who have CNN and/or Fox, after Scarborough, playing in the newsroom all day long and Drudge as their home page, consider whatever cable is talking about to be the story of the day.
6)That's what they write about.
Harry Shearer observes that print reporters are addicted to their political operative sources and virtually NEVER go do any independent reporting. Now that may be a slight overstatement, but it is largely true.
And you, Ryan, want to browbeat us news addicts into paying for all that, i.e., "subscribing". No thanks.
#3 Posted by Tom, CJR on Thu 9 Apr 2009 at 11:55 AM
Hey, Tom.
I'd be the last to say that a lot of news didn't suck. I wouldn't have this job otherwise!
But just because the cornbread's weak at my favorite restaurant doesn't mean I'm not going to keep going back for the pork chops.
#4 Posted by Ryan Chittum, CJR on Thu 9 Apr 2009 at 03:51 PM
At least you get to choose the pork chops. How would you like the head cook to force you to buy everything on the menu, including the barbecued squirrel that the rightwing extremists make the restaurant to carry? And then the cook and servers come after you with brickbats and calling you a thief and a scalawag when you object to having to buy all that? When all you want is pie and coffee?
#5 Posted by Tom, CJR on Thu 9 Apr 2009 at 06:34 PM