Yesterday morning there was a delightfully irresponsible article on Bloomberg written by one Catherine Dodge (of Bloomberg). The title of her article was: "Banning Big Wall Street Bonuses Favored by 70% of Americans". The article contained no new information in the two year battle between Wall Street, which largely wages a silent war, and politicians, press and activists who wage a very public war for lack of anything else to talk about or as an attempt to divert attention from more pressing matters.
That Ms. Dodge, who writes for Bloomberg would choose, as year end approaches (and the sensitivities to those in the industry around year end exist), to write the article and exacerbate feelings is rather amusing and distressing, as she clearly thinks she is a "political" writer. Her by-line is listed as Washington, as in DC, and she clearly forgets in her writing that she works for a "financial" news and analytics service. Additionally, she seems to have forgotten that she, and many of her colleagues, hang around the "trough of Wall Street" collecting scraps and tidbits that fall from the feed bucket to write their pithy pieces of the excess and greed. She seems to conclude, however clearly myopic, that all who work within proximity of lower Manhattan's most famous street are the likes of Gordon Gekko.
Not only does Ms. Dodge forget who she writes for and about, she has the audacity to cite a poll which gives very little reference to its polling criteria (thus creating the impression of great bias). This poll, conducted reportedly by Bloomberg of 1000 adults nationwide over the age of 18, concluded that 70% of Americans say "big bonuses" should be hit with a 50% tax. Ms. Dodge chose to specifically quote one poll respondent, Michael Robertson of Wayne, Michigan. Who said that "The American people bailed them [Wall Street] out and immediately they paid their employees very large bonuses". He went on to be quoted as saying: "I don't believe they should have a bonus at all for a while". Mr. Robertson unfortunately lost his job as a retail auto parts company. He was also quoted as saying: "Of course I'm bitter about this Wall Street thing". Is he a real source of anything useful here and what is he talking about when he says the Wall Street thing (most of middle America cannot tell you how many continents there are or even what the capital of their very own state is - Lansing, by the way, Mr. Robertson), so what "thing" is he talking about here?
What thing would that be? Would it be the fact that Wall Street, while in a lot of cases not helping its public image, has paid a select few massive, if not ridiculous amounts. If so, score one for Mr. Robertson and middle America (or at least Ms. Dodge's 70% of the 1000 adult Americans she supposedly polled). Would it be the roughly 130,000 financial jobs lost (as cited in an article by the "Financial Times") in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis? A small amount by comparison to overall job losses but no less important to those put out of work. Would it be the fact that most of Wall Street has paid back its tab (associated with the TARP bailout) in full while the feeder business for his auto parts business, OEMs and GM, in particular, still works to pay its tab back? Which of these things was he referencing and was she writing about?
Aside from the fact, as with many "polls", that I have no idea who she polled, her highly factual article forgot to mention such things as the consumer spend and subsequent jobs which the $20.3bn in cash bonuses she cites in her reference to the New York State Controller's office actually provides for. How many downstream retailers and manufacturer, realtors, builders, and other local craftsmen would have little or no work without the monies paid by "evil" Wall Street?
As with much of her article, this was an editorial. An opinion piece with no balance. She danced in seeming delight when talking of Virginia Democratic Senator Jim Webb's proposed legislation to levy a 50% tax on bonuses of more than $400,000 (which fortunately did not pass as many of his colleagues don't want to focus the light of day on their pork barrel benefit "bonuses"). Congress's role in Wall Street's woes is clear. They supported Clinton's move to roll back regulation which had been put in place to avoid much of the excess and issues which created the 2008 crisis (By the way, good job reading the history books, you sanctimonious lot. Go back to discussing things you can comprehend like steroids in baseball and sleeping on Dominican republic lounge chairs).
Ms. Dodge then wrapped her puff piece by quoting yet another member of the general public who complained that while the wicked Wall Street dodged the bullet and then reaped reward, she and other "equal people" were struggling to pay back loans they were given with no one bailing them out. Of course, these " equal people" (equal in what way? Stupidity? Naïveté?) had no idea that they were stretching beyond their means. They have no measure of "right" or "wrong". They live in this country eternally in the belief of entitlement and reward as opposed to hard work and merit. So when the "finance man" came and offered them something too good to be true, well, they had no accountability in the consequences of the fact that it was [too good to be true].
"Yellow Journalism" was a wonderful turn of the century (1900) scheme to get people to pick up specific newspapers in a war for circulation. The phrase itself refers to a term coined by "The New York Press" in 1897 as it related to a battle between media magnates Pulitzer and Hearst in their war to increase circulation. This was not news, but rather incendiary headlining. Opinion largely devoid of fact, but full of vitriol intended to raise ire and divide people, while selling newspapers. It would appear that in this case, Ms. Dodge has researched one thing well, and that is the role of "Yellow Journalism" as applied to modern society (though I thought that was what CNN and Fox News were for). So thanks to her and many others who will come over the next few weeks for allowing this country to duck real issues by focusing on scapegoats while spreading a false flotilla of polling from people largely unqualified to hold an opinion, let alone a job.
No comments:
Post a Comment