Thursday, April 7, 2016

Clinton, the Media, and Money

No more Mrs. Nice Candidate.

Hillary Clinton was rapidly losing ground to democratic socialist Bernie Sanders. She was sticking to her depressing impression of the banally evil Margaret Thatcher, who thrived before she died on a strict diet of lecturing the downtrodden that "there is no alternative"" to predatory capitalism.

Now, I realize that I'll be accused of anti-corporate feminism by musing about the art of the cackle, but here goes anyway....

This week, in light of her tanking poll numbers and recent primary defeats, she's imitating a more wickedly flamboyant Margaret. As in, "I'll Get You, My Pretty!" Hamilton playing the dual roles of Almira Gulch and the Witch of the West. She is out for Bernie blood with an over-acted vengeance.  There is nothing like answering a question about your opponent with a bout of forced derisive laughter to win the hearts and minds of the same young audience you are demeaning.

 Her handlers are betting that Hillary will have more than enough time to quick-change into Glinda of Oz by the time the sands of the hour-glass settle and she can make quick work of Bernie Sanders through a barrage of insults and innuendo. They imagine that they can castigate the millions of millennials who support Bernie, but then magically herd them into Clinton's hot air balloon for her quick voyage back to the White House.

And she is making no bones about the fact that she can't take the Bern for one minute longer. Enough is enough, my pretties, of pretending that this is still a democracy and that your protests will make a lick of difference in the grand neoliberal scheme of things. So it's off with the expensive kid gloves for the big reveal of the boxing gloves that lie beneath, hand-tailored to fit even the most ham-fisted politician.

Now that the contest has finally reached the wealth inequality and consolidated media epicenter of the universe (New York), Hillary Clinton is calling in all her chits from her partners in the neoliberal disinformation biz, a/k/a The Great White Way.

Before the final tally of her Wisconsin defeat was even in, the Clinton machine was circulating the "damaging" transcript of Bernie Sanders's editorial board meeting with the tabloid Daily News. Campaign publicists even helpfully highlighted the bits in which Bernie allegedly goofed in saying (correctly, it turns out) that the Treasury Department, under the president's direction, has the authority to break up the big banks. Tweet the faux-gaffes to your family and friends and then send us a buck, the Clintonoids begged.
The Daily News, which also published an inflammatory front page accusing Bernie Sanders of throwing the Sandy Hook Massacre families under the bus, is owned by right wing billionaire neocon "thought leader" Mort Zuckerman. He and the Clintons have socialized together both in Manhattan and in the Hamptons, where Hillary penned her "Hard Choices" memoir in isolated plutocratic splendor between fund-raising gigs with the rich and famous.

  If there is one thing that Hillary does extremely well, it is bringing extremely rich and famous people together for fun and profit. And that includes rich media moguls like Zuckerman, who donated generously to her family foundation before siccing his editorial henchmen against Bernie Sanders in a board meeting that sounded more like a semantic waterboarding. 

Former Clinton Labor Secretary Robert Reich calls the ensuing corporate media brouhaha over the Daily News transcript "absolutely bonkers." He writes,
In an exchange with the New York Daily News editorial board a few days ago, Bernie said he didn’t know if the Fed had authority to break up the big banks but the President does have such authority under the Dodd-Frank Act.
This drew an onslaught of criticism from the media: "Bernie Sanders Admits He Isn't Sure How to Break Up Big Banks," read Vanity Fair's headline. "This New York Daily News interview was pretty close to a disaster for Bernie Sanders," said The Washington Post. "How Much Does Bernie Sanders Know About Policy?" asked The Atlantic. The Clinton campaign even said in a fundraising email "on his signature issue of breaking up the banks, he's unable to answer basic questions about how he'd go about doing it, and even seems uncertain whether a president does or doesn't already have that authority under existing law."
The criticism is bonkers. Bernie was absolutely correct when he said the President has the authority to break up the big banks under Dodd-Frank. He's repeatedly specified exactly how he'd use that Dodd-Frank authority to do so. His critics are confusing the Dodd-Frank Act with the Federal Reserve. Whether the Fed has the authority on its own to break up the biggest banks is irrelevant.
Clearly, Bernie has the Democratic establishment worried enough to try to twist his words into pretzels.
What do you think?
 No need to actually think this one through. Just follow the money.

In the next several weeks, the consolidated corporate media -- funded by the same banks, pharmaceutical giants, defense contractors and oil companies which fund Hillary Clinton -- will be like a troupe of flying monkeys, in full unified attack mode against Bernie Sanders and his message of a revolution against corruption and the worst inequality since the Gilded Age.

Politico last year published a list of corporate media gifts to the Clintons. At the very top is Carlos Slim, chief shareholder of the New York Times Company, who forked over at least $5 million.  Also in the multimillion-dollar range are James Murdoch of Fox News Corp; Newsmax, a conservative media group based in Florida; and Thomson Reuters.

Other donors are conservative publisher Richard Mellon Scaife; Abigail Disney; Howard Stringer, formerly a CEO at CBS and SONY; Bloomberg LP; Discovery Communications; George Stephanopoulos of ABC-/Disney; Time-Warner; AOL; HBO; Hollywood Foreign Press Association; Knight Foundation; Public Radio International; Turner Broadcasting; Comcast; NBC Universal; PBS; Politico owner Robert Albritton; AOL Huffington Post Media Group; the Hearst Corporation; PBS News Anchor Judy Woodruff; and the Washington Post Company.

Follow the money. The corporate media and democracy are antithetical to one another. As far as they are concerned, elections are a spectator sport in which you, the citizen, may participate once every two, four or six years by selecting one of the candidates they have chosen especially for you. Since they didn't choose Bernie Sanders, they are trying to destroy him.

And all indications -- half mile-long lines at Sanders rallies, his improving poll numbers -- simply reveal that the corporate media just aren't very good at what they do. They are abysmally failing at what Noam Chomsky has called the manufacture of consent. 

Guess what? The manufacturing has hereby been outsourced from the media conglomerate propaganda machine into millions of independent working minds and rebellious, fed up spirits.

As Auntie Em retorted to Almira Gulch in the very populist Oz classic: "Just because you own half the county doesn't mean you have the power to run the rest of us!"


Meredith NYC said...

Thank you for this post Karen, and the Reich quote, as the media distortion on banks and Bernie intensifies.I’ll repeat my post on it from late last night below.

When Hillary said she’d tell the big banks to cut it out if they were getting too risky---this must mean the prez DOES have the authority to break up tbtf banks, right? So, Daily News, what do you think? What does ‘cut it out” mean???

For a bit more confusion----here’s a clip from Democracy Now transcript April 6 re Sanders/DNews Editorial Bd meeting. Gonzalez, a columnist there, was at the meeting.

“JUAN GONZÁLEZ: he did stumble a little bit when he was pressed on how he would break up some of the too-big-to-fail banks. He clearly did not have that down pat.

AMY GOODMAN: Who would have the jurisdiction.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Oh, right, who would have the jurisdiction, and—but, overall, I thought his performance was excellent.”

The main issue is not quibbling over which agency has jurisdiction, but the effects of Citizens United, and who has more power/authority in a democracy--big banks vs elected govt?

I wonder which part of the govt does Neil Kashkari and Sandy Weil think should downsize the banks? (I’ll have to try to look that up, when I gather strength).

And why doesn’t Robert Reich put his remarks on his blog instead of facebook, just curious?

My comment:

The media’s making a big deal about the nydailynews scolding Sanders for lacking details to regulate Wall St, and break up big banks.
Did the dailynews or nyt ever report that 170 economists signed a paper agreeing with Sanders plans to reform Wall St? And that Thomas Piketty wrote an approving essay of Sanders, that he is part of a trend ending the era of Reagan small govt? Let Krugman explain that, since he reviewed Piketty’s famous book “Capital”.

Or PK may stay serenely above it all on his Nobel, noble pedestal?

Tonight Chris Hayes interviewed the obnoxious Barney Frank, who in a torrent of words had only 1 point, that Sanders couldn’t reveal exactly at what level he’d break up the banks. Like if Sanders was more detailed, Frank would support it? He kept asking, in hostile, breathless tones---at what point are they too big to fail? So maybe Frank thinks banks should be so big, they equal the power of the modern nation state? We wouldn’t want to do the big banks an injustice would we?

Robert Reich kept trying to speak through the steamroller. Frank reminds me of Trump in his manner---those 2 should have a debate.

Reich said it’s not just financial, but also political power that needs to be broken up. And that 2 Fed Chairmen –of Minn, and Dallas, as well as Sandy Weil all say the banks should be broken up. Why doesn’t Sanders use that in speeches, pray tell?

The Washington post said the Sanders interview with the daily news was ‘disastrous’. Democracy Now says he parried the questions well.

At least Sanders WANTS break them up. Hillary and her media fans don’t. He’ll reinstate Glass Steagall, and tax financial transactions—that’s pretty specific.

Where is media’s coverage of the 170 top economists who publicly support Sanders plans to reform Wall St? Why doesn’t Sanders cite this in his speeches???

How specific is Hillary’s plan to avoid another crash? Only that If SHE thinks the banks are getting too risky, she'll tell them to 'cut it out'. She asks for our votes with such a generality. Imagine if Sanders said that. What's her definition of risky? How about legal rules not just her judgment? Where’s Barney Frank on that?

Neil Kashkari the Gop fed reserve chair of MN, said tbtf banks are under capitalized, under regulated, so too risky.
So why isn't he on TV explaining this to voters? Why didn’t Bernie cite him in speeches???
I don’t understand this.

annenigma said...

Wow, talk about tit for tat. Pope Francis just gave Bernie the same kind of tacit endorsement that Obama gave to Hillary. His Holiness just invited Bernie, the first Jewish Presidential candidate, to speak at the Vatican, and right before the important New York primary. Maybe he'll bless him while he's there to protect him from The Evil One (you know who).

Miracles do happen!

Anonymous said...

Please stop using the NYtimes comments section to spam your own blog. This is utterly obnoxious. We have requested to the NYtimes that they stop allowing this, and will flag any comment as spam that includes links to personal blogs. Of course we are totally supportive of anyone, anywhere, blogging about the things they care about. But find your own audience and stop shamelessly promoting your own page on other articles. Or better yet, become an actual expert and contribute to an academic discipline, such that people will seek out your writings.

Jay–Ottawa said...

On the Vatican's invitation for Bernie to drop by to give a talk on social justice, my sources in Rome tell me that when the cardinals of the Curia saw that video of the bird descending onto Bernie's podium they fell to their knees. Hey, we need a Messiah and Bernie's Jewish.

Karen Garcia said...

Dear "Anonymous".... (what an original, brave moniker)

I "spam my own blog" -- that is, sign the link at the bottom -- only when the Times topic is apropos to the article I am commenting on. Interested readers can then visit for more details/links if they so desire.

Luckily for your sore eyes, I rarely comment on Times articles these days. And people do seek out my writings here and at other sites where I have been published -- despite my abysmal lack of wonkish contributions to an "academic discipline." I already have quite a wide audience.

Obviously your complaints to the Times have fallen upon deaf ears. But flag away and maybe you'll get lucky. The Times has been known to "disappear" my comments in the past. And meanwhile, whenever you come across one of my comments, please feel free to flag it, ignore it, chew the rug, or whatever makes you feel better.

Anonymous said...

Let's take a look back at the 2008 Democratic campaign:

A senior member of Clinton's staff, Bill Shaheen, had to resign after raising Obama's admitted use of marijuana and cocaine as a youth.

A junior staffer resigned after forwarding an email suggesting Obama is a Muslim. In the South Carolina primary, Bill Clinton made race an issue.

Hillary Clinton's staff mounted a dirty tricks operation by circulating a picture of Obama in African dress, feeding into false claims on US websites that he is a Muslim.

That's just to mention a few of the many dirty tricks the Clinton campaign rolled out - all of which served to create a lot of negative publicity and ill regard against Clinton from Democrat voters. Forgive me if I'm so cynical about Clinton being the grand opportunist that she is drawing on that lesson and creating the drama and friction to her advantage this time.

Thank you, Karen, for your comment on the Krugman op-ed today (and I, for one, am thankful for the link that you posted to your blog).

Elizabeth Adams said...

The BEST thing I ever got out of my NY Times experience was finding your blog.

annenigma said...


The group ("we") you speak for is who exactly? We can guess.

Authoritarians like your ilk have the nerve to tell the NYT what to do and now commenters who blog too? What part about connecting to other people do you object to? The part that involves a Political Revolution maybe? I found Sardonicky through Karen's link in a NYT comment years ago and I'm thankful for it. It's been a great source of inspiration, especially for our Revolution.

I find it particularly disturbing that your group is systematically flagging comments for deletion. I think we should all alert the NYT and commenters whenever we can about that subversive practice and the danger to our free speech rights. Is there anything else other than links to blogs that your camp objects to which cause our comments to be deleted? A comment by Janice Nelson Badger to Krugman this morning wondered where her first comment disappeared (she's Verified) and referred to it containing a link. If I wasn't running late this morning, I'd find her comment and tell her about your group's Un-American Activities Committee.

It's difficult enough to get some dissenting comments published there, we don't need your efforts to quash our REVOLUTION further but that's obviously your intent. I'm grateful that you found this this blog through Karen's comment so that we are now better informed about the forces amassing against us. You've inspired me, and I hope all of us, to up our game. Btw, we don't need grammar Nazi's either.

... and the horse you rode in on!

Karen Garcia said...

Since I am now on notice that my Times comment has been "flagged" by the spam police, here it is for posterity, or something:

This essay is breathtaking in its dishonesty. Orwell could have used it as an example of the hack genre in his classic "Politics and the English Language."

PK sets up the fraud by citing "many if not most... wonks." He names not a single name; doing so might out them as campaign surrogates or advisers. If he were honest, he would have cited the 170 economists attesting to the soundness of Sanders's proposals.

There's more weasel-wording: "some" Sanders supporters are angry cult members. This is not only ridiculous, it's a lazy and shameful way to categorize the millions of people I would assume Hillary needs should she win the nomination.

And how about that over-hyped editorial board meeting? The News is owned by billionaire Mort Zuckerman, a Neocon war hawk who's given hundreds of millions to the Clinton foundation. Robert Reich has already made short work of the media "going bonkers" over Bernie's answers, which were essentially correct.

PK fails to note that Sanders let off his steam based upon reading a provocative misleading headline in the Washington Post -- another big media contributor to the Clinton foundation.

No surprise that the consolidated corporate-owned media are actually the ones going over the edge here, with their identical talking points coming straight from the Clinton campaign. Not one original thought among the slew of sponsored content propagandists with the nerve to call themselves pundits and journalists.


I urge everybody to read Orwell's critique of obfuscatory political writing. Krugman should know better: he has professed to be an admirer of Orwell's famous essay.

Instead of Krugman acknowledging that he was one of the founders of the Wonks Against Bernie movement, he offers this passive little gem of a paragraph:

"Some Sanders supporters responded angrily when these concerns were raised, immediately accusing anyone expressing doubts about their hero of being corrupt if not actually criminal. But intolerance and cultishness from some of a candidate’s supporters are one thing; what about the candidate himself?"

Krugman should have said that HE raised the concerns, and that some people subsequently accused HIM of corruption and criminality. For the life of me,though, I don't get the criminal part. To my knowledge, nobody has every suggested that Krugman be jailed for his hackery.

But as I wrote in one previous comment, Krugman should really keep doing this kind of stuff. It only generates more donations for Bernie's campaign coffers.

Meredith NYC said... your Krugman comment----yes it’s PK and some of the Clinton fans who are over the edge. PK has been quite emotional for weeks. It’s unbefitting. I’ve advised him in the blog to go for a walk around the Central Park reservoir, lovely now in the Spring, to relax and regain his perspective. Since he lives nearby in a high $$$ Manhattan n. hood.

And your reply to “Serban and others” in your thread specifically traces this idiotic sequence of mis and disinformation and distraction from issues to personality. I’d like to see your reply repeated in a main comment in the next column, so more will read it. PK needs the curtain pulled to reveal him as the Wizard of Oz –or something. He exemplifies overreaction.

I wonder how PK’s colleagues are reacting at the Luxumbourg Institute for the Study of Inequality at the Cuny Grad Center.

Jay–Ottawa said...

"[Y]es it’s PK and some of the Clinton fans who are over the edge." -- Meredith

I heartily agree. It may not be a Revolution yet, but it's at least a street fight. And somehow we're in it––or at least Karen is.

The HRC camp is getting desperate. Their supportive camp of professional commentators, like PK, and affiliated trolls and commenters, like Anonymous-9:46 AM, have begun to flail around in panic mode.

To their surprise (and mine, too), Bernie Sanders is beginning to look like a serious threat to HRC's last chance to become President. Just when she was paid up on her dues and had a lock on the job.

The more Bernie surges ahead, the more we can expect dirty tricks––and more, I worry––from the HRC camp. This is only the beginning. “Let all the poison that lurks in the mud, hatch out.”

Karen Garcia said...

Correction to my Krugman comment:

According to the Clinton foundation records reported by Politico, Morty Zuckerman donated several millions not hundreds of millions, to the Clinton foundation. Unfortunately comments on the Krugman thread are now closed, so unable to correct my comment there. I apologize. A mistakes was not only made. I, Karen Garcia, made the mistake.

Mark Portier said...

Thanks, Karen, for your "follow the money" research (correction included) and your NY Times comments which, if anything, should be reported to the Karma Police, so that the crooks you most often cite can get what a just universe would have coming to them.

Speaking of karma, doesn't Paul Krugman deserve a nomination for the 2016 "Judith Miller Prize," awarded to the journalist who willfully dispenses with the greatest amount of credibility in a given year? I think he's already won.

traynorjf said...

Just read your comment on Krugman's snow job on Sanders. Good job. Hell, great job! No matter what the outcome, I'm writing in Sanders though I'm pretty sure he'll back Clinton in the end. And I'll understand why he'll do so. But as Jay said " least it's a street fight."
Screw it! From my point of view it's a counter-revolution, against the slow motion coup by the
Clinton-Obama bunch.
Keep slugging Karen!

Will said...

Add me to the long list of people who found Sardonicky in the NYT comments section. Keep fighting, Karen!

I believe it's Howard Zinn inspirational quote time again. Enjoy:

To be hopeful in bad times is not just foolishly romantic. It is based on the fact that human history is a history not only of cruelty, but also of compassion, sacrifice, courage, kindness.

What we choose to emphasize in this complex history will determine our lives. If we see only the worst, it destroys our capacity to do something. If we remember those times and places–and there are so many–where people have behaved magnificently, this gives us the energy to act, and at least the possibility of sending this spinning top of a world in a different direction.

And if we do act, in however small a way, we don’t have to wait for some grand utopian future. The future is an infinite succession of presents, and to live now as we think human beings should live, in defiance of all that is bad around us, is itself a marvelous victory.

Neil said...

Big banks are a symptom of the underlying problem, the Federal Reserve. There will not be substantial changes in big banking until the Federal Reserve is gone. Think of the Federal Reserve as U.S. economic central planning by and for the One Percent.

Unfortunately the Federal Reserve undermines real capitalism, which may be the best regulation for big banks. I am pleased to see the Wharton School Alumni Magazine published "To Fear the Fed or Not" by Peter Conti-Brown in the Winter 2016 edition, see

The "Essay: Saving Capitalism From Death" published in the Wharton School Alumni Magazine by Anthony W. Orlando in the Winter 2015 edition warns "Economic inequality is the great business challenge of our time" see,

To "Anonymous" and his/her "spam your own blog" comment, back when I read the NYT every day, I found blog links helpful, and not obnoxious. That’s how I met Karen and Sardonicky, and I’m glad I did. FYI, my banking page is linked to my name on this blog post.

Mountain Fish said...

Like several others commenting here, I just read your post responding to Krugman's representation of Bernie Sanders. Krugman's op ed piece made me sick. You wrote such a sage rebuttal to PK I was delighted to follow your blog link. As a subscriber, I'm appalled at The Times' shameless reporting bias for HRC this election season.

Thank you for the wonderful responses you have made on the NY Times for a long while and now for exposing the economist I had once admired. If you have any suggestions for better, less biased resources than The New York Times on the internet, I hope you will post a few.

Sincere regards,
Sharon Hegi

Anonymous said...

Karen, please get a real job. Your posts have teeth. Impressionable young persons read what you write to "refute" Nobel laureate Paul Krugman.

Dr. Krugman has a PhD - his name is not "PK".

You like the Senator? Senator Sanders? Are you crazy? He's George McGovern!!!!! Good luck with 8 years of Ted Cruz and a permanent "conservative" SCOTUS majority!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

dean said...

Karen,I also found Sardonicky from your NYT comments. Thank you!

Both Gerald Epstein (} and Matt Taibbi ( to Professor Krugman.

Jay–Ottawa said...

If you ever want a quick but comprehensive rundown on the role of big banks in the Crisis of '08, download Matt Taibbi's overview of events, which link was kindly provided by dean, above.

All through the piece, Taibbi keeps asking how on earth Paul Krugman can, in 2016, dismiss bitter criticism of big banks in light of their central and pivotal role of intentionally and systematically committing fraud over a period of years against millions of homeowners and investors around the world. Did PK miss the news, the congressional hearings, the wailing from the masses? Is he slipping into dementia? Or is he one with the crooks and pols who defend such crooks?

So much, BTW, for the reliability of PhDs, professorships at top universities, Nobel Prizes and columns by experts in premier publications for getting at the truth––all qualifications demanded by the harrumphing Anony-9:46 AM & 10:12 PM-mous, above.

Anonymous said...

Flagging a NYtimes comment, which contains a link to one's personal blog, is not an ideological attack against Sander supporters. Anyone who thinks so is surely confused and misfiring with the loaded gun of their own frustration.

Frankly, it's just obnoxious for a blogger or journalist to do. To think this is an unreasonable charge means that you have spent time in this digital space but are clearly unaware of standard etiquette. It is obnoxious because what you and several others do is a form of free-riding. You are free-riding on the resources of the journal, which spends huge amounts of time and money to attract readers, and free-riding on the intellectual capital of its authors, in order to drive traffic to your own site. This is likely the reason NYtimes has removed your posts in the past. Usually people who want to re-direct traffic like this have to pay for advertising. You apparently think you deserve it for free, and are trying to get it without even the slightest awareness that it’s not OK.

Practical speaking, in situations like these the damage is small because the amount of traffic being re-directed is very small. But it is the principle of the matter. And as far as I can tell, Sanders supporters (I count myself among them) are very exercised on principle.


Karen Garcia said...


I agree that a person or corporation or sock puppet should not use the Times comment section for the sole purpose of plugging themselves or their organizations commercially. I link to my blog judiciously, maybe in 5-10% of my published NYT comments at the very most. And that is only if my most recent blog-post is directly related to the Times topic I am commenting on. My Krugman comment contained a link to details that the comment character limit could not accomodate.

Another blogger, who I will not name, some months ago forwarded to me an email she'd received from the lead comment moderator at the Times. In response to complaints such as yours, he only requested that she limit her blog-linking to the topic at hand. There is no policy at the Times outlawing links. The moderators have no problem with them per se, as long as the practice is not abused.

"Free-riding," as you call it, is a two way street: the Times and the bloggers are doing each other a mutual service. The Times gets free content from some great writers, and these unpaid writers can, in turn, build upon their audience. As far as I am concerned, the Times and its readers are getting a pretty good deal, even a better deal than those impolite linkers. How many times have you read comments stating that the reader comments are the most popular feature? The Times is making big bucks off what is essentially voluntary slave labor.

Some lucky commenting winners even get a front page spread in lieu of a paycheck. Ain't the Sharing Economy grand?

annenigma said...


Spoken like a hard core capitalist.

How else are we supposed to find these non-profit blogs? We find them through links in the media and then that is extended further by blogrolls such as those to the right on Sardonicky.

It's not like Karen or other bloggers are getting rich or siphoning off business from fatcat capitalists like Carlos Slim, one of the richest men in the world and majority investor in the NYT. Bloggers like Karen are simply helping us participate in democracy by being informed citizens and helping us express our rights of free speech. Let's hear it for the First Amendment!!!

I hope you understand the extent to which a handful of corporate media outlets control our news. Even PBS (Propaganda Broadcasting System) is funded by big corporate foundations and donors who buy a slant on the news. Working around corporate media/government control of information is the important principle here, not taking advantage of a 'free ride'. I'd be in favor of even more free riders/freedom riders in this corporate controlled consumerist culture.

p.s. Instead of the Anonymous option, you can select the Name/URL option and enter Jeff. No need to enter a URL.

Jay–Ottawa said...


So, Jeff, now that you've taken the spam bait––kidding, kidding––and now that you've had a moment to look around at a few of Karen's recent posts, and in view of the admission that you are attentive to principle, and, furthermore, that you are a Sanders fan, how do you like Sardonicky? Refreshing, bold, focused on important matters, concerned about good government, backed up with facts and citations, an advocate for justice, fair and logical? Or not?

In addition to being a man of principle, you also appear on the scene as a concerned, even protective, fan of the NY Times. And, as already mentioned, you volunteer that you are a Sanders supporter. Well, given all that and given the Times's treatment of Sanders over the past several months along side its stream of journalistic bouquets for Hillary Clinton, this question, a question I've been dying to ask many of the Times's loyal readers: How observant of journalistic principle is the NY Times, with its continued promotion of Clinton and Krugman in light of their work in their respective fields of expertise?

annenigma said...

The most valuable part of Karen's blog is that she makes the connections and provides the context almost always missing in the reporting of 'journalists' for corporate media - for all the obvious reason$.

Meredith NYC said...

Here’s at least something admirable from the major media I saw tonight.

See Cspan video on Investigative Reporting awards from April 9:
“Harvard University’s Shorenstein Center hosted a panel discussion with the winners and finalists of the 2016 Goldsmith Prize for Investigative Reporting.” 

Listening to these reporters tell the fascinating stories on how they did their work was impressive and heartening --at least some in the press are trying to reveal the truth, ‘without fear or favor’.

Each reporter, from the Times, W. Post, Guardian, a Tampa paper, etc, gave excellent presentations, on how they kept at it despite obstacles thrown at them. They spent months/ years gathering and organizing data, making call after call to police depts., school and city officials, and people re the Exxon climate change data cover up.

Their work exposed the official smokescreens.

The Guardian---Re the # of people killed by police in “The Counted”, pushed the FBI and DOJ to overhaul their recording of these police killings.

Inside Climate Change---How Exxon manufactured doubt on climate change that their own past research had proved. NY Attny Gen probe resulted.

NYT investigated how cc co’s and retailers have clauses in many consumer and employee contracts that deprive Americans of their ability to sue, insulating companies.

The Tampa paper investigated “Failure Factories” exposed how deliberate school segregation and deprivation of funding led to big drops in student performance, and to school violence. Reforms and investigations resulted.

Meredith NYC said...

Karen.....2 way street, right. The comments make money for the Times, keeping paying customers.

In Krugman’s over the top column, “Sanders Over the Edge”, the top reader rec’d comment was over 3000, the most I’ve ever seen. He supported Clinton, but some comments defending Sanders against PK’s calumny also got recs in the thousands.

The op ed page will soon get a new editor---from the Atlantic, forget his name---maybe a change for better, don’t know. Haven’t read the Atlantic in a long time.

Clueless It Seems said...

HRC is totally corrupt. So was her husband. Here: let me hold up my phone and take a picture! That makes it real, right?!

Meredith NYC said...

Thanks to both above re link to Matt Taibbi --a great essay... clip below. Traces how the big banks engineered the mortgage crisis, thus the Great Crash, so Hillary and Krugman should stop hiding behind the ‘shadow banks’ excuse. They are obscuring the truth with their shadowy rhetoric and redefining the meaning of liberal.

Karen....if you do comment to Krugman, maybe cite Taibbi in some way.

“Why the Banks Should Be Broken Up
Bernie or no Bernie, 'Times' columnist Paul Krugman is wrong about the banks
By Matt Taibbi April 8, 2016
“But Krugman neglects to mention the crucial role that big banks played.
The typical arc of this scam went as follows: Giant bank lends money to sleazy mortgage originator, mortgage originator makes lots of dicey home loans, the dicey home loans get sold back to the bank, the bank pools and securitizes the loans, and finally the bank sells the bad merchandise off to an unsuspecting investor.

The criminal scenario that was most common was a gigantic bank buying up huge masses of toxic loans from a Countrywide or some other fly-by-night operation and knowingly selling this crap as a good investment to some investor.

As MIT economist Simon Johnson pointed out in 2010, these institutions have become so big that they can confront and defy the government. Moreover the failure to punish the banks for the great mortgage frauds of the crisis years left all of these companies with the knowledge that the authorities were afraid to aggressively enforce the law, for fear of disrupting a fragile economy.

The banks emerged from '08 with the implicit backing of the federal government. They became quasi-state entities, almost immune to failure. Not just Bernie Sanders worried about this. Voices as diverse as Louisiana Republican David Vitter and Krugman's own New York Times editorial board have argued for hard caps on bank size.

.... these firms also proved too "systemically important" to regulate and prosecute. They grew too big not only for capitalism, but for criminal law.

When a company is not only too big to fail, but too big to prosecute, it's too big to exist. Krugman may believe otherwise, but he shouldn't pretend that others – including his own paper – don't have legitimate concerns.

valerie said...

Great essay, Karen. Sorry to be so late in commenting. I, too, found your blog through a NYT comment. I think it used to be the custom to put your blog or even your e-mail address. You, certainly, weren't the only one doing this. I remember writing to a guy in Australia who left his e-mail address.

And I agree, the only reason I read the NYT is for the reader comments. The poor standard of journalism that the Times has sunk to during the Obama administration in order to justify Democratic support of the plutocracy is frightingly close to propaganda. I have learned more about what is REALLY going on politically from the commenters than I have from the journalists who work at the Times.

Jeff is clearly a troll. He has offered nary a valuable or insightful thought on anything that is going on.

Glad to see Robert Reich sticking up for Bernie. I imagine he is quite conflicted having had a good relationship with the Clintons all these years. In the end, he left the Clinton administration for a reason and he is speaking out for a reason.

I find the Clinton people becoming more and more strident. They always seem to fall back on the lesser of two evils argument instead of demanding their candidate simply do the right thing. But then again, it is hard to serve two masters and the Clintons, like Obama, owe their allegiance to those who fund their campaigns.