FAIR is the national progressive media watchdog group, challenging corporate media bias, spin and misinformation.
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.
The Washington Post apparently thinks great things about a candidate who seems to have zero understanding of economics and has no ideas on how to address a potentially catastrophic environmental problem.
In Dana Milbank’s worldview, which is widely shared in Washington policy circles, it doesn’t matter what you do to the country as long as you keep the deficit down.
The DC press corps that goes nuts because Bernie Sanders doesn’t know the name of the statute under which he would prosecute bank fraud thinks a guy who calls for eliminating most of the federal government is a great budget wonk.
The New York Times ran a major news story on a study by Citigroup that was designed to scare people about the state of public pensions and encourage them to trust more of their retirement savings to the financial industry.
While the advocates of a policy certainly have the right to assign whatever name they like to the policy, it seems a bit extreme to criticize its opponents for using the term that advocates themselves had used in the recent past.
It seems the view of many in the media is that Sanders is a fringe candidate, so it’s not necessary to treat his positions with the same respect awarded the views of a Hillary Clinton or a Marco Rubio.
It’s not surprising that the Washington Post (owned by billionaire Jeff Bezos) would be unhappy with a presidential candidate running on a platform of taking back the country from the millionaires and billionaires.
Rather than talking about how the rich raise the cost of our healthcare, the Washington Post’s Catherine Rampell wants us to be upset at seniors.
The Washington Post’s ability to treat the Fed as a neutral party is striking when the evidence is so overwhelming in the opposite direction.
The Washington Post’s Charles Lane argues that the United Auto Workers supports outsourcing. His smoking gun is that if the union had agreed to lower pay for its workers at the Big Three, then they might shift fewer jobs to Mexico.
While there is much to ridicule in promises being put forward by the presidential candidates, the items to which Thomas Friedman devoted his column don’t fit the bill.
The Washington Post decided to correct the positive image of Denmark that Sen. Bernie Sanders and others have been giving it in recent months. But some of the assertions in its piece are either misleading or inaccurate.
it wasn’t surprising to see David Brooks praise Marco Rubio, his favored candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, for a welfare reform proposal that was put in place almost 20 years ago.
The moral is that the government is part of the economy, whether George Will likes it or not.
It is amazing how the elite media can be dragged along by their noses into accepting that the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) can have a big impact on trade and growth.
The Washington Post’s difficulties in separating its news and opinion pages showed up again in a piece by David Fahrenthold that warned the public against Sen. Bernie Sanders’ agenda in his presidential campaign.
What the Labour Party’s Jeremy Corbyn is proposing is directly financing spending by printing money. If that is “childlike,” then folks like Paul Krugman have a similar affinity for childlike solutions to economic problems.
The more important question ignored in Brooks’ analysis is how people are supposed to respond when the party they have supported consistently pursues policies at odds with fundamental principles of their core constituencies.
According to Federal Reserve Board cultists, the Fed sets interest rate policy solely for the good of the country. Those of us who live in the reality-based community know that the Fed is hugely responsive to the interests of the financial sector.
