I have a bone to pick this morning with Andrea Mitchell. I have been meaning to pick it with her for some time, but this morning her reporting on the impact of the financial crisis on the political campaign was so blatantly biased that I cannot let it pass without comment. I get that NBC promotes Mitchell as the exemplar of the impartial observer--and must assume, therefore, that the network shares her bias. So here's my beef: in reporting on the two presidential candidates and their statements in response to yesterday's events on Wall Street, Mitchell saw fit to introduce AND conclude her commentary with a snide reference to a long-scheduled Obama fundraiser to be hosted tonight in Hollywood by Barbra Streisand. The unavoidable and clearly not accidental inference of this way of bracketing her story is that Obama is not only an effete snob, but a hypocritical and money-grubbing effete snob, more interested in hobnobbing with the rich and famous than with the problems of the national economy.
I know that there's much ink spilled, from left and right, about the bias of the media. The right have made a great point of being the victims of supposed liberal bias. It's my own belief that the corporate-controlled media have the interests of their corporate controllers at heart. And while I don't wish to get personal about this, I wonder whether it's really appropriate to give so much public air time for commentary/reporting (the difference is blurred, these days) on matters of vital public financial interest to the wife of the man who promoted and enabled the policies that many believe were responsible for the current disaster.
It was a day that, in the opinion of many experts, was the worst for the American economy since the Great Depression, and we heard from the Republican contender for the Oval Office nothing more than a repetition that old Bush mantra that the "fundamentals" of the economy are strong. Worse, when his Democratic opponent presumed to disagree with this view, John McCain quickly claimed--in a mendacious pander to the blue collar vote--that by "fundamentals" what he really meant was the American worker, and that Obama, in disagreeing, was once again insulting hardworking patriots.
What a farce. Another mind-boggling "how can he possibly get away with it?" day. With long-established financial institutions crumbling and thousands losing their jobs, with the Dow average capsizing with a loss of more than 500 points, with the federal government having stepped in with taxpayer money to rescue giant corporations whose greed the Republican government itself enabled with decades of deregulation, the fundamentals are sound? Well, no. Not from my point of view. Like many others, I now live on a fixed income, and it's distressing to watch my nest-egg terribly depleted. But I'm fortunate. Others have lost jobs and homes, lack health care for themselves and their families, and can barely afford the essentials. Sorry. There's something "fundamental"-ly wrong with a system that places so many at extreme risk while it rewards others with fabulous--and fabulously unearned--wealth. There's something wrong with a system that extols the "free market" and then uses taxpayer money to bail out those who have abused this freedom with a mixture of incompetence and sheer greed.
And the rich continue to thrive. How else to explain, on the evening of this day of world-wide economic collapse, a Sotheby's sale in London where a single artist--Damien Hirst, an entrepreneur par excellence--walks off with a haul of $127 million (on just the first of a two-day sale; and was that dollars, or pounds?) in profit from the sale his incredibly high-priced baubles. Talk about bulls and sharks! Hirst's bull (with gold-plated hooves) sold for a reported $18 million; his shark in formaldehyde (the small version!) for $17 million. The mind reels. I'm still trying to understand what this has to say about the free market and the world economy, but I'm sure that it's not healthy.
And speaking of art, is it not quite strange and weirdly appropriate to read that Jeff Koons, that other immensely successful art entrepreneur, is exhibiting his (incredibly high-priced) baubles of gaudy kitsch at the Palace of Versailles, the over-the-top home of the monarch who presided over the demise of the last great Western socio-economic model to bite the dust? There's an irony here that's hard to miss. Unhappily, though, today's corporate "royalty" are walking away with both their heads and their piles of cash intact.
So you can see why I'd be mad at Andrea Mitchell today. She, it seems to me, is a part of both the financial establishment that gave us deregulation, unbridled greed, and the belief--passed down to the populace, but without the wealth to back it up--that growth and credit have no limits; and the media establishment that is supposed to provide that fourth estate check on power. How then can she pretend to be impartial, and cast a truly critical eye on those with whom she associates, and those who provide her bread and butter?
If I pick on Andrea Mitchell, let me hesitate to add, it is not out of any personal animosity. It is rather because she represents, in my view, not only a network but an industry--and industry that has a vested interest in preserving the conservative status quo. With reporters like these, Obama has a tough road ahead, to cut through the incessant, self-protective crap of the corporate-dominated media and their 24-hour news cycles, and to open the eyes of the American electorate to the simple truth of their exploitation and abuse.
There simply is no way for her to have any standing for now. She can do neither herself nor the public nor her husband, Alan Greenspan, any good for the moment. She's been working very hard lately, but this time, she needs to skip the election coverage and take a break.....finish that book she's always promised to write.....teach a class, or go out and do an international white paper for NBC away from the US election beats.
Get her outta there!
People most responsible for the current financial mess:
#1. Alan Greenspan
#2. Phil Gramm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkJDux898uE
Perhaps, though, he did not raise as much money?
It was Andrea who pushed the notion that John McCain somehow cheated at Saddleback.
Mitchell propogate the fable that Bush was somehow referring to Obama when he talked to the Israeli Knesset about "the politicians who appeased Hitler".
Mitchell irresponsibly reported "scuttlebutt" that McCain somehow sabotaged BO's Germany visit to a military hospital.
Remeber Mitchell's "analysis" that Rev. Wright's hateful comments were "taken out of context"?
Mitchell was "certain" that BO was not talking about Palin in the infamous lipstick on a pig line. Journalism or opinion?
Mitchell was a gushing apologist for Michelle Obama when some of her unfortunate comments made the airwaves.
It was Mitchell who suggested that Obama would have to wage a battle to get a fair election in "red states".
Mitchell said Republicans were playing to "their base" after a Republican primary debate. She had the gall to say "They played to, 'Let's torture 'em! Let's-' I mean, they, they didn't say that literally, but that was the subliminal message..."
The poster is right. Andrea has a bias, but it certainly is not in favor of conservatives.
That being said, I'm wondering, do you think with the popularity of Fox (right or wrong) and the hot business of talk radio ( conservative at least) that many "news journalists" of late are beginning to interject these snarky comments?
Personally I have felt that most news outlets on the 3 networks always put in jabs at the sake of Repubs but of course you knew I'd say that.
But I'm serious it seems almost weekly new names are being reported/commented on letting their opinions and views come out in snide, snarky comments while in front of the camera supposedly reporting.
No matter what side you fall on Repub/Dem/Indep it is a sad turn of events for News Reporters/Journalists.
How do educators who teach this profession or news stations correct this?
If anyone wants to know how and why the media treats McCain so differently, there's a great book--"FREE RIDE", by Paul Waldman and David Brock. They really lay it all out well.
http://www.amazon.com/Free-Ride-John-McCain-Media/dp/0307279405/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1221749875&sr=8-2
Andrea is just a big bummer and now that her husband is a laughing stock instead of a financial superstar she doesn't bring much to the table. It always takes MSNBC forever to get rid of their dead wood!