FAIR is the national progressive media watchdog group, challenging corporate media bias, spin and misinformation.
Folks like Maya MacGuineas have pushed austerity policies in the United States and around the world for the last decade. These policies have prevented the government from spending the amount necessary to restore the economy to full employment.
It is difficult to share the concern of Fred Hiatt, the editorial page editor, that we will see increasingly dishonest public debates. Hiatt and his team at the editorial page have no qualms at all about making up nonsense when pushing their positions.
We tell folks to ignore all those incredibly rich people with vast amounts of money—the reason most people are not seeing rising living standards is the damn Baby Boomers who expect to get Social Security and Medicare, just because they paid for it.
It really doesn’t make much difference what Donald Trump and Paul Ryan’s political philosophy is. Contrary to what the New York Times might lead us to believe, this is not a battle of political philosophy, it is a battle over money.
If the future of the free world depends on the TPP, then maybe it shouldn’t have included measures that will hugely raise the cost of everything from prescription drugs to software to Mickey Mouse memorabilia.
The Washington Post and New York Times attribute the rise in support for the right to people losing from globalization. In fact, people are suffering because of the insistence of the European Union that its members pursue austerity policies.
This was a period of weak employment growth, but workers from all demographic groups suffered. The numbers in this piece give a misleading picture in implying that white workers suffered disproportionately.
If we give a damn about the Constitution, Donald Trump has to sell off his empire and place his assets in a blind trust, just like every other president has done for the last half century.
The Washington Post editorial page decided to lecture readers on the meaning of progressivism. The villains are Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, who, it tells us, “are embracing principles that are not genuinely progressive.”
While many factors were beyond the control of Clinton and the Democrats, one factor that was under their control was the decision to push the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).
Bloomberg only examines the debt side of the ledger. It’s almost impossible to exaggerate how absurd this is.
When the issue is trade deals, like the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), the Times throws out its usual journalistic standards to push its pro–trade deal agenda. Therefore it is not surprising to see a story in the news section that was essentially a misleading advertisement for these trade deals.
President Obama is pulling out all the stops in pushing the TPP, and it seems the New York Times has decided to abandon journalistic principles to join this effort.
In pushing trade agreements, it is fair to say anything, even if it has no relationship to the truth. Therefore it is not surprising to see Fareed Zakaria pushing the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) by claiming that it will boost growth.
If Bloomberg were interested in views other than those of the financial industry, it might have found some people who supported a financial transaction tax to provide comments for its article. Or it might have tried some basic arithmetic itself.
A New York Times column by Phillippe Legrain denounced the supporters of Brexit by noting their contempt for economic expertise. It then went on to demonstrate good reasons for such contempt.
It is likely that performers will get less than 10 cents for every dollar of lost benefits to consumers, and their take may well end up being less than one cent per dollar. Unfortunately, the New York Times never mentioned these losses at all, ignoring the well-known benefits of free trade.
Andrew Ross Sorkin (New York Times, 4/28/16) presented a confused account of the state of the economy and economic policy under President Barack Obama. The account repeats many self-serving comments from Obama without comment and offers little useful context to readers.
Ruth Marcus used her Washington Post column today to present the speech that House Speaker Paul Ryan should give to Republicans in order to disassociate himself from Donald Trump. She has Paul Ryan being somewhat less than honest.
Thomas Friedman makes up absurd positions, attributes them to the people he doesn’t like, and uses this as an excuse to throw them out of the discussion. He wants to leave it to the real experts.
