The dishonesty of right-wing media critics
September 16, 2008 3:51 pm ET by Jamison Foser
Over at the Media Research Center's Newsbusters blog, Noel Sheppard takes issue with this exchange between CNN's Anderson Cooper and Candy Crowley:
ANDERSON COOPER: Candy, no doubt -- very quickly -- on the campaign trail, it obviously played a big role today. You anticipate, in the days ahead, issue number one, it's going to be front and center?
CANDY CROWLEY, CNN: Oh, absolutely.
I mean, listen, just as foreclosures were showing up on B-17, or in the real estate section, along comes this horrific headline out of Wall Street.
ANDERSON COOPER: Right.
CROWLEY: I mean, this is what they wanted. They believe, of course, that the economy is one of their strengths and that they can paint John McCain as George Bush.
Sheppard's complaint? "The nation's banking system is collapsing, and members of CNN are not only discussing how it helps Obama, but are admitting that this is what his campaign wanted. How disgraceful."
Crowley's comments are objectionable, all right -- but not for the reason Sheppard thinks. Read Crowley's comments again. She accused Barack Obama of rooting for economic difficulties. Sheppard thinks Crowley is "admitting" the Obama campaign wanted this. No, she's baselessly accusing them of wanting this.
Don't believe me? Try a little thought experiment. Imagine that Candy Crowley said in response to a terrorist attack that "this is what the McCain campaign wanted. They believe, of course, that fighting terrorism is one of their strengths." Do you think Noel Sheppard would say Candy Crowley "admitted" the McCain campaign wanted a terrorist attack? Of course not. He'd blast Crowley, saying she smeared McCain by saying he was rooting against America. And he would be right.
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
The Friday Rush: A series of conflicts
Contrary to media hype, Sarah Palin is very unpopular
The erosion and depreciation of assets in the banking industry has been so long coming and so well documented and so thoroughly analyzed and so anticipated for so long, that it's more a shock and a surprise that the media would suddenly run wild with this story, than that Merrill Lynch will be absorbed into Bank of America.
As far as Merrill Lynch goes, they have been writting off billions and billions of dollars in bad mortgage-backed investments and reporting large losses for a year now, and their failure has been inevitable for at least a month... even last month, European analysts were publicly warning of these exact bank failures in the U.S.... last month!
And so what memo system is the national American media on, that they are shocked and surprised today, at what everyone has known for months, even a year?
In the transcription above, we have the CNN hacks say:
"You anticipate, in the days ahead, issue number one, it's going to be front and center?"
"Oh, absolutely."
The time for the failure of so many banks and financial service companies to be such a high-priority issue (even "number one"), to not so much the Presidential campaign and its candidates, but to the Bush administration of our Federal Government, and our Congress also... that time is way past: now is way late: the time to make this such a high-priority was about a year ago (and even then we were long into this cascade of non-performing mortgages that are eroding and depreciating so much of the banking industries assets).
And so what are the Presidential candidates going to say? That they saw this horse getting out of the barn, last year? Or let's close the barn door now, too late?
And besides which, these two men are merely Presidential candidates... we do have a President of the U.S. you know... and he is at the top of all of our regulatory authorities you know... it's been George W. Bush's watch this past year, this past month, and today...
If the CNN hacks think that the many and enormous failures in the banking and financial services industries are suddenly "issue number one" with the Presidential candidates, then what number would they assign to this issue as far as George W. Bush is concerned?
What's the point of even having a President, if he does nothing and is not held accountable?
And what's the point of an American national media, that reports today with shock and surprise, what the world has known for months, a year even?