I read an article a few days ago that expresses the view that Bernie Sanders has no idea what he’s talking about, when it comes to running the economy. The author’s bias seemed quite clear to me, and although I would have like to have seen more detail from Bernie in the interview, I realize that there was insufficient time to deal with all the complexities of breaking up the TBTF banks. Unfortunately, other media have joined the corporate chorus.
The Washington press corps has gone into one of its great feeding frenzies over Bernie Sanders’ interview with New York Daily News. Sanders avoided specific answers to many of the questions posed, which the DC gang are convinced shows a lack of the knowledge necessary to be president.
Among the frenzied were the Washington Post‘s Chris Cillizza, The Atlantic‘s David Graham and Vanity Fair‘s Tina Nguyen, with CNN‘s Dylan Byers telling about it all. Having read the transcript of the interview, I would say that I certainly would have liked to see more specificity in Sanders’ answers, but I’m an economist. And some of the complaints are just silly.
When asked how he would break up the big banks, Sanders said he would leave that up to the banks. That’s exactly the right answer. The government doesn’t know the most efficient way to break up JP Morgan; JP Morgan does. If the point is to downsize the banks, the way to do it is to give them a size cap and let them figure out the best way to reconfigure themselves to get under it.
The same applies to Sanders not knowing the specific statute for prosecuting banks for their actions in the housing bubble. Knowingly passing off fraudulent mortgages in a mortgage-backed security is fraud. Could the Justice Department prove this case against high-level bank executives? Who knows, but they obviously didn’t try.
And the fact that Sanders didn’t know the specific statute—who cares? How many people know the specific statute for someone who puts a bullet in someone’s head? That’s murder, and if a candidate for office doesn’t know the exact title and specifics of her state murder statute, it hardly seems like a big issue… [emphasis original]
Inserted from <Fair.org>
Click through for more detail.
And as I reflected on the quality of the high bias and poor quality of this coverage, my mind kept flashing back to a tune we used to sing in the 1960s.
12 Responses to “I Read It in the Daily News!”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Always loved Tom Paxton! Hey, yeah, peace is bad for the economy, just ask the NRA, and the corporations for which it whores.
At least, in 1964, the NY Post was not yet a paper version of Faux News! Poor Alexander Hamilton!
I too remember when news was real and not fake – and newspapers had to correct and apologize for factual errors. At least I think I do. But as I am finding my memories of other things, like how much the civil rights movement really accomplished, are flawed, I am starting to question my memory and to wonder just how much was really fake all the time. Great song. Probably even greater in hindsight.
Since we are talking about news and nedia, this might be a good time to mention that Jeopardy! is doing a celebrity charity week with politicians and pundits this year. That made me curious, so I looked on their site for the names, and when I saw Louis C. K., Melissa Harris-Perry, and Al Franken (OK, along with Anderson Cooper and S. E. Cupp and a lot of names I didn't know, most of whom are probably Republicans) I thought I might have to give in and watch some. The full list is here, along with the charities they are playing for: https://www.jeopardy.com/jbuzz/news/power-players-contestants-announced Channels and times I can't tell you, I don't even know my own yet.
Daily News: I think it's an excellent interview. He sounds like he has a cold, or a sore throat. Still listening…GO, Bernie!!
Good song by Tom Paxton.
Thanks, Tom.
Look on the positive side of this attack on Bernie: if he wasn't in the process of becoming a really big threat to them these (corporate) media and their economic pundits wouldn't start making such a ruckus all of a sudden. They're finally getting it, Bernie is going for the jugular of all big banks and corporations while he's at it because he wants them to down size and pay their fair share in taxes. And he doesn't need a detailed plan to do that, that plan needs to be made together with advisors when the time has come. First he needs to make people see that it is the way to go. If it wasn't, ask yourself why Hillary would take the essentials of his view on board.
I heard Clinton give a less detailed version on the banks–why was it OK for her but not for him? I don't think Dodd-Frank lets government direct the specifics of making them smaller in how the statute is written for just the reasons you gave TC.
PS…I miss Cronkite
AMEN!
Lona, you right! They wouldn't be chomping on Bernie's backside of he wasn't getting as many votes! He has them scared and they have to realize that they might just have to run against him and they are getting their hits in early, in case they DO have to run against him!!! And there's a more than fair chance that they MIGHT!!! The way he beat Hillary in Wisconsin has them paying more attention to him!
Media whores! Can't stand most of them! I get my need from The Daily Show, Larry Wilmore and @Midnight, LOL!!! At least they tell it like it REALLY is!!!
I get my NEWS!
The corporate owned media is doing what it is told to do. Bernie was written off at the beginning, they were giving him hardly any coverage until he started winning. Now he is a danger to their instructions, so they will belittle him. JL, I miss Cronkite, too. We have talking heads now instead of reporters.
I remember my mother's stepfather swore by news reported by Walter Cronkite . . . the unvarnished truth he called it. It seems to me that some journalists now want to be the news or make the news, not report the news.
Exactly!
Thanks all!! Hugs!!