Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

PBS Screws Up Report on Financial Crisis

By Danny Schechter, AlterNet. Posted February 21, 2009.


At a time when we need hard-hitting investigations into our financial catastrophe, we are getting superficial reporting -- even on PBS.

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

In Special Coverage

Belief:
Is Blind Faith in God and the Bible a Modern Invention?
Devilstower

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace:
Who's Paying for the Recession Most of All? Young Workers
Lizzy Ratner

DrugReporter:
Lies About Marijuana Drive People to a Much More Harmful Drug -- Booze
Steve Fox

Environment:
Why Max Baucus' 'No' Vote on the Climate Bill May Really Help Its Passage
Jeff Mcmahon

Food:
Soda Helps Make Americans Unhealthy and Fat -- Will Soda Tax Prevail Despite Pushback by Beverage Industry?
Christine Spolar, Joseph Eaton

Health and Wellness:
Do We Really Want to Enshrine Insurance Monopoly into Law? This and 5 Other Complaints About the Health Bill
John Nichols

Immigration:
NYC Marathon Raises Question of Who Is American Enough?
James E. Johnson, Jr.

Media and Technology:
How Biased Media Can Brainwash You
Melinda Burns

Movie Mix:
The Yes Men: Pranksters Out to Fix the World
Mark Engler

Politics:
4 Ways the Stupak Amendment Deprives Women of Access to Abortion
Jessica Arons

Reproductive Justice and Gender:
How the Stupak Amendment Radically Undermines Abortion Rights
Rachel Morris

Rights and Liberties:
"My Kids Want to Hide Their Identity; They're Scared Someone Will Attack Us": U.S. Muslims Being Targeted
Jaisal Noor

Sex and Relationships:
9 Silly Things People Say When They Hear You Don't Want Kids (And Ways to Counter Them)
Liz Langley

Take Action:
G-20 Meetings: Nothing Much Happened in the Suites, and There Was Too Much Punch in the Streets
Laura Flanders

Water:
Why Natural Gas Is Not a Clean Energy Panacea
Stan Cox

World:
10 Suicides a Month at Ft. Hood -- War Stress Is Taking Soldiers to the Brink
Dahr Jamail

More stories by Danny Schechter

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

Last week, an action thriller move called The International opened nationwide. It is a big-screen shoot 'em up about a bank gone bad. A crime story, involving gun running, buying up debt and conniving with politicians. It seemed timely but was actually a dramatization of a real, if barely remembered, story -- the corruption of that notorious failed bank, BCCI, popularly known as the Bank of Crooks and Criminals.

It was a story that we at Globalvision knew well, because in 1992-93, we produced a strong documentary about that crooked bank shut down by federal authorities, for Frontline, the PBS investigative series.

I didn’t work on the project directed by Rory O’Connor but recall that we worked with independent journalists to investigate its entanglements with public officials and drug cartels. It took about a year to complete.

In that era, the idea that criminality and finance were related was considered a legitimate subject for prime time on PBS. In those years, Frontline welcomed independent journalism, too, not just programs from a small insider clique.

This past week, Frontline was back to reporting on banks with a quickie hour special called "Inside the Meltdown." The subtitle: "How the economy went so bad so fast, and what Bernanke and Paulson didn’t see and weren’t able to fix." To my shock, the Baltimore Sun’s reviewer praised it to the skies, calling it "one of the finest hours of nonfiction TV that I have ever seen in 30 years of writing about the medium."

Gag me with a spoon.

The film had all the hallmarks of the polished format and tony style that has come to embody Frontline productions, Will Lyman’s powerful voice, dramatic if not ominous music, beauty shots of Wall Street at night, limos crisscrossing Washington, faceless men working behind Bloomberg computer screens. It conveyed more a feeling offering any new facts to challenge us. It was more concerned with what government officials did after the meltdown than what the bankers did to cause the crash.

The New York Times was more impressed by another doc, CNBC’s doc House of Cards -- which also named few names or investigated few crimes (even as its host David Faber also appeared on Frontline).

"Oddly enough, the PBS offering is showier and more melodramatic, embellished with the kind of foreboding sound effects and stark black-and-white photographs that are a specialty of Sept. 11 films or accounts on the history of the Cuban Missile Crisis," writes reviewer Allesandra Stanley. "Frontline builds a persuasive case against Mr. Paulson, but relies for the most part on secondary sources to do so: academics and reporters."

But even if the Frontline style was more commercial-looking than the one by a commercial channel, it substance was narrower and its experts never ordinary people like those who watch PBS and/or progressive analysts like those on Bill Moyers' show. Instead, there was a procession of columnists and reporters from the mainstream media whose views are accepted (and acceptable) as the only legitimate sources.

You can watch online (at PBS.org) and see what I mean. There were scores of "names" from elite media like the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal, Vanity Fair and even CNBC. An NPR host from the "Planet Money" show had a sound bite, but as you will see on the Frontline Web site, they are cross-promoting with that program.

The program indicts the interconnected nature of Wall Street firms, but the perspectives in the show showed the interconnected nature of the mainstream media, with Frontline lining up star journalists -- some on target, others just repeating their print stories -- from institutions that were mostly derelict in exposing subprime lending when it was happening and might have been stopped.

Many of those media institutions were complicit in the crisis, spending the boom years running ads from dodgy lenders, bank fraudsters and credit card purveyors. There were no voices from bloggers, no airtime for critics of the financial system, and oddly, no original interviews with the players they were covering like Henry Paulson, Ben Bernanke or Tim Geithner. It was mostly B-roll and archive.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: media, pbs, frontline, financial crisis

Danny Schechter writes the News Dissector blog for Media Channel. His latest book is Plunder: Investigating Our Economic Calamity (Cosimo Books).

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Schechter is on the mark ...
Posted by: mmckinl on Feb 21, 2009 12:30 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
After all the hoopla dispersed throughout PBS about this new, incisive, ground breaking "Special" from Frontline I was totally underwhelmed by the content.

If one wants a pretty decent look at current events try World Focus with Martin Savage on PBS stations.Yesterday they had a good look at the economic crisis.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

liberal media
Posted by: drugs on Feb 21, 2009 1:24 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hi. There are 5 companies. Period. 3 of them are big media. They are not liberal. The media is not liberal. Large corporations are not liberal. If your largest corporations are the media, you will get corporate media. Corporate media does not have the interest of labor, the woman on the street, main street, the average joe, whatever you want to call you and me, in mind. They have the interest of corporations foremost in their minds. For such a simple argument, the left has had a very difficult time with it. The argument that the "media is liberal" has actually been won by the right wing. The spineless left has not been able to rub two simple words together on this thing. Thats why PBS is now the same as nuclear trigger happy NBC/GE. They are now selling nuclear bomb parts. Great job left. You've lost the media and are now working on the economy. Hint: It'll take more than two words.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» MSNBC, NY Times Corp Posted by: SeattlePackedSnowandCollidedCars
» RE: MSNBC, NY Times Corp Posted by: Mbast1
» RE: MSNBC, NY Times Corp Posted by: drugs
Not far enough
Posted by: YogiBear on Feb 21, 2009 1:43 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You talk as if the mortgage crisis is the cause of our national illness and not the symptom that it really is. Did it ever dawn on anyone there might be a reason -- other than inflated mortgage rates -- that people are defaulting on their loans? That maybe, the soaring cost of healthcare coupled with the bleeding of jobs overseas, the inshoring of jobs from Mexico and India and stagnant wages might have contributed to why people couldn't afford their mortgages anymore?

Funny how all the financial experts in the country haven't been able to figure that one out. We've been slipping into crisis for years now. Stopping people from taking bad loans is like sticking one's thumb in the dike. You stop the leak, but do nothing for the dam full of cracks.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Come on Yogi Posted by: marid
» RE: Come on Yogi Posted by: YogiBear
Sad.
Posted by: Urgelt on Feb 21, 2009 2:22 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's sad that even PBS has become toothless in this age of a compliant media.

It seems to me that there are lessons we are failing to learn from this terrible economic meltdown. But we do not seem to be generating much insight from it.

It's arguably true that the national and world economies changed in fundamental ways beginning in 1973. That was the year of the Oil Embargo. Price shocks pushed us into a period of stagflation that resisted governmental attempts to correct it. Only when the Reagan administration changed the inflation indices to understate the real rate of inflation did economy began to take off again. Hiding the true rate of inflation enabled the Fed to goose the money supply upward and heat up the economy. Ever since then, we've had one bubble after another as too many dollars chased too few investment opportunities.

Bubbles are opportunities for crooks. When everything is going up, bad strategies and frauds go undetected. And each bubble had its villains: the S&L crisis, BCCI, Madoff among others. But these villains are symptoms, not causes, just opportunists cashing in on others' gullibility during periods of irrational exuberance.

Since Reagan, we've broken the power of unions, weakened labor almost unto death, trashed regulatory oversight of financial institutions, and concentrated wealth into fewer hands. We've legislated mostly on behalf of special interests and enabled concentrations of market power in fewer, larger corporations with monopolistic power. We've sent millions of jobs overseas. We've become a debtor nation on a scale never before seen in world history. We've thrown away treasure on pointless foreign adventures (yes, I'm one of those people who think we could have tackled terrorism as a criminal matter, not through war on national territories). We've let our infrastructure crumble. We've let rich people offshore their wealth and duck taxation. We've done just about everything in our power to wreck our economic strengths.

While all that was going on, the quality of our diet deteriorated and our health care system became unaffordable for millions of Americans. Poor health is the result for many of us, and that, too, is a boat anchor slowing our economy.

Bubbles collapse. Driving our economy with bubbles was a short-cut taken for political expediency by Reagan and subsequent Presidents. Now we have a mess worse than we had in the '70's, much worse. I think it's fair to say we made a huge mistake in there somewhere.

And if we don't figure it out, we won't be able to do better. That's the true tragedy of the media's failure to do serious journalism. It leaves us blind and stupid.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Sad. Posted by: SirScud
» RE: Sad. Posted by: tommo2
» RE: Sad. Posted by: winterinthehinterland
Pentagon Broadcast Service
Posted by: ErHoff on Feb 21, 2009 3:12 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
After the last 8 years of deceit and denial, is it any wonder America doesn't demand real journalism? How many still vote Republican or Democrat? How functionally illiterate are the American people? So is it news that PBS is not for progressive prime-time anymore, because of lack of demand?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Pentagon Broadcast Service Posted by: Yankeeinexile
» Exactly, Yankeeinexile Posted by: socialpsych
» Actually Beck Posted by: marid
» RE: xactly, Yankeeinexile Posted by: billkmg
» RE: Pentagon Broadcast Service Posted by: willymack
Dempcracy Now - Amy Goodman
Posted by: wolfytoo on Feb 21, 2009 3:16 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yes, the average US media, newsprint and radio and television, serves up bland soup with overcooked vegetables. Even The New York Times reporting is insipid. Take a look at it pro Israel coverage. Read the Washington Post's ridiculous coverage on Chavez. Its as if a reporter never went to Venezuela to factually analyze the president's policies. I rely on listening to Amy Goodman on Democracy New. She also has a web site DemocracyNow.org. She seems to be a "lone wolf" in terms of hard hitting, investigative reporting.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

PBS relies a lot on U.S. Tapayers
Posted by: Rolomax on Feb 21, 2009 3:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
this bothers me on many levels.

I'd like to think that some of that money is being used to help we the people.

Right now, I can't figure out which of our elected official they rely on. City, State, govt. You bastards had better let them do their jobs.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

drop the (D)'s and the (R)'s from the convo and you will see who is (bleeping) YOU
Posted by: SeattlePackedSnowandCollidedCars on Feb 21, 2009 3:54 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
really folks try it out for a week even black out some of the names and just read about the way you've been getting screwed over then check back with me. For too long we have been thinking in terms of (D) and (R) and you know most of y'all can't wait to tear into any (R) esp when it comes to this current market downturn however really stop and think about the fact of just taking away the party lines and seeing life for what it is.

Good Luck

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: CURE HAS BEEN DROP'n'KICKED Posted by: americansheep
Amen!!!
Posted by: Gravitas on Feb 21, 2009 3:57 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I was looking forward to this after it was touted on so many alternative web sites. And I was highly disappointed. PBS has definitely gone down hill. Probably because they have increasingly come under corporate influence. I have long lost any faith in the MacNeil Leher News Hour. Their health segments are pharma commercials. Probably because they are sponsored by the Robert Woods Johnson Foundation.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I thought...
Posted by: FAITHCARR on Feb 21, 2009 5:00 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... I was the only one who was dissapointed (too mild a word) in this much anticipated expose'

Must admit I never saw the end. Disgust and suspicion of the new PBS whitewash forced my finger to the power off button.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I loved PBS/NPR
Posted by: weathered on Feb 21, 2009 5:07 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the nostalgia of a Fri.pm back to back Lou Rukeyser/Washington Week...is now a sad reflection.
Today they Lie, albeit it's simply more scholarly, but its not trustworthy only plausible and half-truths are what you tell children so as not to scare them.

I so identify w/all the comments and thank the writer.

America was critically wounded on 9/11 our spirit got crushed in our own rubble. Unless we confront 9/11 we'll continue to be dragged down into draconian hole.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: I loved PBS/NPR Posted by: willymack
They're starting to live up to their monikers
Posted by: DCostello2 on Feb 21, 2009 5:29 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
P 'BS' and N 'PR' = Public BS and National PR.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Bsuhknell
Posted by: When In Doubt on Feb 21, 2009 5:52 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When GW came in so did the Republicans take over PBS. Hadn't you noticed?
Lehrer Report?
Gwen Ifful?
Brooks & Shields?
Come On!
The fix is in.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Sadly Lacking
Posted by: Purple Girl on Feb 21, 2009 6:07 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
first it began only with Bearne Sterns- this meltdown has been in the Works for Decades. should have Started in the '80's with the Unveiling of the New Updated Version of Feudlaism- Trickle Down.
Saw nothing about Greenspans "Flawed Logic" which was the Prime Mover.
Nothing about how the financial sector bought off Politicians (Lincoln S&L & the Keating 5), Nothing about how Gramm pushed through the legislation Derailing every Stop gapped put in place to avoid another financial crash.
Not even how the Bush Admin seemed to order a 'Stand Down' to all Regulatory agencies which still had means to investigate and prosecute the Players.
What set my hair on fire is th eclaim these Con men make that they were forced to make crazy loans to meet the demands put on them by Legislators. No one forced them to devise any means possible to get people into homes. When it was typical and customary to expect 20%, of course it was hard for most to buy a home. But to offer, 'Interest Only' was not legislated.
Along with these loan sharks 'too good to be true' mortgage offers every snake oil dealer on late night TV who 'showed how to make millions' by flipping houses with a rubber check should already in in prison.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Sadly Lacking Posted by: JSquercia
It's ALL about the Board
Posted by: Andie927 on Feb 21, 2009 6:19 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
About 6 years ago I started to become painfully aware of just how 'Corp./right-wing bias NPR/PBS were getting.

Then I started sending off e-mails, nothing. A computer response if any at all.

After a lot of long hours, and aggrevation, I became aware of the fact that, PBS & NPR, are controlled by the CPBO Board. That Bush had replaced, any even slightly left-leaning members, with hard Right-Wingers. Untill Obama, gets around to fixing the CPBO Board, PBS/NPR are just about worthless. I still watch Bill Moyer, but that's about it.

Do some research into the Bush appointed Board, the incomptence and outright corruption, as usually per anything Bush touches.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I No Longer Watch PBS
Posted by: navy-vet on Feb 21, 2009 6:38 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Haven't watched more than a handful of PBS "documentaries" since I learned, several years ago, that DOD was one of NOVA's sponsors. Under Bush, PBS/NPR became even crummier.

With the new DTV, our local PBS channel (which isn't very good) is showing the ARTS channel separately. That's worth watching, but. . .for decently accurate news, our local Indy public Channel 35 carries Amy Goodman's Democracy Now. If I want TV news, that's where I go.

However, Indy Internet (TRUTHOUT, Daily KOS, Alternet, etc.) is even quicker and just as reliable.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: I No Longer Watch PBS Posted by: billkmg
» RE: Same here ... Posted by: Cybershaman
Not Danny Schechter's Finest Hour
Posted by: PhilBlank on Feb 21, 2009 6:54 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For decades I have admired Danny Schechter, but this recent rant on AlterNet seems to offer a lot of personal anger rather than analysis. I would agree wholeheartedly that PBS has fallen since the 1990s and more specifically that Inside the Meltdown could have asked -- and answered more important questions.

What Mr. Schechter fails to consider, however, is that the Frontline program was tackling something inherently complicated and convoluted. The average PBS viewer -- as is true with most people in the U.S. today -- do not understand the how the nation's financial systems work. Therefore, they don't understand how this 'meltdown' happened. So the producers decided to produce a one-hour program to give them the overview. Was it all-inclusive? No. Could it have been all of what Schechter claims it should have been -- the tell-all tale of conflict-of-interest, media collusion and more -- in one hour?

Hell no. And Mr. Schechter should know this better than anyone. In fact on the PBS Frontline website, it says that INSIDE THE MELTDOWN is the first of a 3-part series on the topic. So, Danny, while I've admired your work since the WBCN days in Boston, this is NOT your finest hour. You sound bitter...and I'm not sure why that is.

Finally, tell me why I should care that "Paulson is an environmentalist?" Jesus, I could care less about that...in the context of this story.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» PBS/NPR laugh in our face Posted by: weathered
Deception by Omission is Collusion.
Posted by: gazooks on Feb 21, 2009 7:28 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Bitch-slapped PBS now knows it's place in the politicized media slipstream.

The vacuous non-substance of the FL "expose" completely lacked any attempt to identify or describe the structural and historic basis for either the product derivatives or the subterranean OTC markets on which they're traded.

How the producers could think that this amounted to anything more than intrigue entertainment is beyond imagining.

The implication is complicity with political interests not at all interested in an informed public making decisions for their future based on the certainty of many, many tens of trillions of $'s yet to be spent to compensate gross malfeasance.

Despite the many hundreds of hours of media devoted to the issue, there has still not been a comprehensive and fully faceted explanation given to the new owners of big, ruptured American banks.

Meanwhile, the erstwhile economic cheerleaders at bastions of media credibility like the irresponsible market promoter CNBC indulge faux indignation and anger with a President charged with trying to cope with the unprecedented fraud that they profitably aided in their inane and misleading economic reporting.

The criminals are at large still inflicting their damage through deception and omission while everyone dances around a financial black hole that's very much alive and well sucking equity from a bankrupted nation.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The media is complicit
Posted by: we_need_Abe on Feb 21, 2009 7:51 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The main stream media (MSM) is and has been complicit in the lying to americans for decades. If you look into the nature of the relationships and ownerships between finance, government, our intel services and MSM it is all there. They say that truth is stranger than fiction, well our reality is as or more ominous than warned by George Orwell. I shudder to think where we'd be without an internet. Too bad Frontline can't do a real story on the failure of the media over the last 40 years and in particular the last 10 to 20 years.

I commend AlterNet for providing a forum and people like Danny Schecter for putting forth the effort to inform people of the truth. But like you can read with great clarity in Naomi Wolf's book "The End of America, Letters of Warning to a Young Patriot" we the people MUST get more involved or we WILL lose.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

a positive result - fewer junk faxes
Posted by: awhennig on Feb 21, 2009 8:02 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For the past few years I used to get several junk faxes a day about cheap mortgages, subprime offers, teaser rates, etc. Being in Canada I first laughed it off then became increasingly concerned that this kind of lending couldn't be sustainable. At least the number of junk faxes has declined significantly in the past few months...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I Disagree
Posted by: NoPCZone on Feb 21, 2009 8:09 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Frontline episode didn't pretend to be an all inclusive detailed account, rolling back the clock to the root causes of the mess the world is in. A single episode in Prime Time isn't sufficient to do that.

What they did do was give a timeline account of what major events transpired and when, as the wheels came off. The idea was to give viewers, many of whom paid little attention to business and finance prior to recent events, an overview of the unraveling and the response by government's lead agencies- Treasury and the Federal Reserve in concert with Congress & the President.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

it won't change
Posted by: grkjr on Feb 21, 2009 8:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
unfortunately even the most liberal shows, Keith O and rachael M, leave too much out.. seldom have they interviewed any of the real opponents to establishment bailouts.. those who not only warned of the coming bubbles but also have the solutions..why is that? Also strong answers to this war versus weak pro war.. nothing else left to do proponents.... we must conclude that the most liberal people in the newmedia are simply brain dead when it comes to interviewing articulate opponents to the stattus quo... too bad as keith can do so well with his editorials... just no experts to back up the program with a few exceptions..has a great constitutional expert from a washington university,, mane slips me. who regularly brings to light the appropriate response to overexteneded presidential powers and matters such as torture etc. Perhaps it is because there are no liberals left, only those just left of center right. Which i will define as.
1. supports aggressive action on foreign soil for our safety.. no clue that it keeps the terrorists going...
2. sucker for the bail out mentality of "too big to fail" thus lets make them bigger.. follow that logic.
3. americans who borrowed too much have to share in the blame.. maybe to young to have lived when banks would not lend you money unless you could afford it..thus the banks are to blame and should take full responsibility for bad lending as it was fraudulent..
4. still justify overreaching of the constitution via presidential powers...simply cowards.
5. finally almost all the stands which this country takes today via its leadership, voted into place by we the people, is based upon a stand in which the cowardly thing to do has become the most rational approach. We now choise the easy answers thinking it will bring short term results for problems that will require years of descipline and a total rethinking of our present positions...
6. and now we are faced with unavoidable years of pain as we now pay for the past sins of ommision. the only question seems to be if we are ready to start the long road to recovery now, or wait until we hit bottom. and it appears that we want to wait until we hit bottom, as we continue to choose to go down the path of least resistance versus the "right thing to do"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

THANK YOU MR. Schechter!
Posted by: Phred42 on Feb 21, 2009 9:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I thought it was me. I watch that show and found it, at best, extremely unlike what I'm used to seeing in a program by Frontline.

What I saw was a mia-not-culpa for Bernanke and Paulson.

What I got from it was that Poor Ben and Henry were FORCED by circumstances beyond their control to put that 3 page gun to the head of Congress and stampede them into submission. They had no other choice poor babies.

What a crock!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

So, what's new(s)?
Posted by: monkeywrench on Feb 21, 2009 10:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
No big surprise that PBS is just as scared as everyone else to name names and produce real news documentaries. Who do you think "butters their bread" over there? Hell, even 10 years ago PBS was referred to as the "Petroleum Broadcasting Service."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

gimmie shelter
Posted by: gimmie shelter on Feb 21, 2009 11:13 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You know it is one thing to just screw up, after all we are all human(except for bankers and those on Wall Street) but Rick Santelli should be fired for creating a bait and switch. The arrogance of trying to fire up an audience to believe it was the people and not the corporations that created the looting of America is incredible. He asks the audience if they want to pay for the mortgage of the person next door, while no one may actually like the idea at least it has an immediate and direct affect for anyone living around this house. The house is not abandoned or vandalized to make the rest of the block look less attractive, thus helping not to drag area home prices further down.

The Bait and switch comes when you think of the amount of taxpayer dollars in the form of welfare for the rich have been pumped their way and with no positive result. These jerks should be in jail and all their property should be seized to begin to pay back the citizens of our country, albeit pennies on the dollar.

For this A..hole to suggest that it would be better to give the crooks more money to buy a larger yacht instead of helping your own community is ludicrous. Wake up and see them for what they are.....and I'll let you figure that one out...

The media is back to doing what it does best..being spoon fed what they will and will not report by the ones who created this disaster. I think one of the fastest selling items in this country are firearms..wonder why their not buying stocks instead.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

gimmie shelter
Posted by: gimmie shelter on Feb 21, 2009 11:55 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is what I wrote to David Brooks at the NY Times when he wrote that those on Wall Street have just been idiots instead of the way I feel which is that they are criminals.

"You are very generous to these what you call idiots(Bankers & Wall Street) and I call criminals. Each and everyone(Bankers & Wall Street) should be stripped of their wealth if they are found to have been complicate or have gained monetarily as a result of America's losses. Never mistake idiots for intelligent criminals they give the idiots a bad name".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

ba
Posted by: mnstra on Feb 21, 2009 12:13 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My Jaw hit the floor when there was no mention of the President at all!!!!!!!!!
It was a very superficial story with a lot of empty drama. No mention of Indi Mac or how Wachovia bought a toxic savings and loan that was insolvent and took the bank down with it so Wells Fargo had to buy it.Arranged by the fed on a weekend!!!!!!!
I wish Frontline would do a part 2. But the ruling elites want to keep us all in the dark.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We don't understand economics
Posted by: PaulK on Feb 21, 2009 12:44 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sorry to say this, but 90% of the public barely gets the basics of economics. If Rush Limbaugh said the economy of the United States depends on toothbrush sales, his audience would nod appreciatively.

99% of the public doesn't completely get economics. Democrats can tell the public "more road spending" and they'll nod appreciatively. Not that more road spending is a terrible thing, but we really wanted to get away from smog, traffic jams, being dependent on the Saudi Kingdom and global warming, didn't we?

99.9% of the public doesn't quite know what to do. As a matter of fact, almost no one knows how to sprinkle pixie dust on the country and get rid of the national debt while still financing two wars, an incipient war in Pakistan, a mushrooming debt to China, vast amounts of corporate corruption, a 2 or 3 million man prison racket and the developed world's worst health care system hands down.

PBS can't explain the mess because:

1. They don't want to because they take blood money.

2. You think they really understand all this curves on a graph and stuff? Or maybe they just nod appreciatively.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: We don't understand economics Posted by: BigElectricCat
A slightly different perspective . . .
Posted by: charles000 on Feb 21, 2009 2:55 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For years I have worked at that seemingly mysterious intersection of technology development, venture financing, and economic policy. In such context, at times, I analyze data and hear discussions not commonly seen by the "outside world".

This is what I come away with at this juncture, and have sensed is the reality that until recently was a reasonably well disguised iceberg, lurking below the waves of the now very stormy economic oceans we are supposedly attempting to navigate through.

About a decade ago I gave a presentation at Duke, and later at various venues on the concept of "virtual commodity assets" becoming the defacto valuation platform against which all future trading indices, including currencies which themselves are a traded commodity, would be based.

The "dot com" debacle was a sort of momentary glimpse into this theoretical universe that had ALREADY become the well established, but "unpublished" reality of the global trading and currency grid systems.

What I found rather interesting at that particular event was that about half of the audience at the time (various faculty and industry analysts) were in complete denial, or simply did not want to see the obvious . . . but the other half not only were on the same page, but thought my presentation at the time was "too gentle" of a description of such phenomena.

But this is the real point, that was told to me in the strongest language possible - the public cannot be included in this "inner realm" of analysis, as the panic of realization and reaction thereof would itself become the process dynamic that would collapse the entire system.

In other words, even then, the system itself was already, in essence, a fantasy, a shell game of virtual commodities and valuation indices that had no real grounding in anything except the theoretical formulae that had been invented to create these "virtual commodity assets".

The implied intrinsic valuation was not based on the system itself, but on the psychology of perception of value in the system.

I cannot stress this strongly enough.

And I reiterate, this was a closed event filled with some of the best intellects of academia and international economic systems theory to be found anywhere, which included a number of theoreticians who had already been long engaged in their hedge funds, derivatives trading, and so on.

This was a chilling indicator of the differences between the psychology of public perception, and actual system health.

This hollow house of cards has been a spectacular theater act for many years, and certainly this was not unknown to many who played at this level in the game.

My sense of the past ten years is that various insider elements in the transnational banking consortia knew, with certainty, that this "global Ponzi scheme" would eventually come to an end in its current form, and their plan was to position themselves as the new power elite coming out of this now occurring perfect storm of engineered economic chaos, as a strategic long term eventstream with "acceptable" collateral damage to large segments of the US and global populations.

PBS can't report this - no one can.

To do so would cause even more damage than what is already apparent, at an accelerated pace that would spiral completely out of control, and complete exposure of this macro system architecture as described will be blocked, by whatever means necessary.

And that's the key here - this is engineered economic chaos strategic objective, and the theory is to manage the apparent chaos within pre-determined parameters.

This is what I believe is the reality, as the evidence I have personally witnessed would strongly suggest such to be the case.

The reality is, there is no "there" there.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» gimmie shelter Posted by: gimmie shelter
Steamer
Posted by: ranger1 on Feb 21, 2009 4:24 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What can I say...Talk to all of your neighbors and get the media crap out of their heads...Those 50 you tell about it will tell 50 others...etc.. It is the only way to derail this BS Media

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Citizen
Posted by: coolfuzzybreeze@hotmail.com on Feb 21, 2009 6:18 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The media continues to have a conversation with itself and call it news.
"Frontline" packages it. What a waste. It is a sorry state of affairs. Listening and watching actual hearings is far more informative. Why do newsreporters do this? When the glass ceiling was lifted in the 90's and newspapers and media had to make a profit, news became whatever was thought to sell papers or gain an audience. So turn it off folks. Give them the message that we want real "news" not regurgitated subjective opinions. News needs to be objective, factual, timely and about what affects the people whether it makes them happy or not. Let the public form their own opinion. Contrary to the pundits, we out here do have a brain. Google "Who Owns the Medai".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

moyers
Posted by: grkjr on Feb 21, 2009 6:59 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yes, if bill moyers ever left pbs then i would never turn pbs on. its my last yr of support until they actually start reporting the news again.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why watch PBS political and journalistic broadcasts?
Posted by: peterjkraus on Feb 21, 2009 9:07 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
PBS has been suckered into the now usual "balanced" reporting: the guy on the left says the earth is round,so guaranteed they put up a wingnut against him who swears it's flat. Watch Lehrer's Brooks and Shields "opinions": Brooks, wrong on everything the last eight years, but a good talker, gives the neocon response to everything Shields defends, and Lehrer kind of winks and lets the audience know that the often unbearably long winded Shields is wasting his, Lehrer's, precious time. The Republicans running PBS for years now have dismantled what was once credible reporting, and the emasculated public network is now only good for Nova and Nature. Gwen Ifill is the only true political journalist left on PBS, and regrettably, she's not on enough to justify tuning in regularly.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

......whoops...... and Bill Moyers, of course.
Posted by: peterjkraus on Feb 21, 2009 9:09 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
sorry. So Moyers and Ifill. Two out of how many?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Another Example of Why Fourth Estate is Dead
Posted by: keystone999 on Feb 22, 2009 3:10 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What passes for news in this country is as appalling as it is sad. Most American news outlets have been hiring entertainment reporters and letting go investigative journalists. After Bush tampered with NPR, they substituted "think-tank" lackeys for academic experts on any numbers of topics. PBS is doing the same. One can only assume that those who gave the Banking Crisis spot such glowing reviews have little knowledge of real research or serious reporting. It doesn't say great things about our Democracy or our literacy standards.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Yes.
Posted by: hgovernick on Feb 22, 2009 6:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Chris Matthews has a segment on his show titled "Tell Me Something I Didn't Already Know".

Frontline's "Inside The Meltdown" didn't tell me anything I didn't already know. Very disappointing.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Iraq war - oil prices - housing bubble - collapse
Posted by: gunboat diplomat on Feb 22, 2009 7:26 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In a word: imperial overreach. Don't count on the media, who sold the lies about Saddam's bioweapons and nukes and links to 9/11, to expose the story.

That's it, though. No Iraq invasion, no threat to invade Iran, and no skyrocketing oil prices.

That led to a huge flow of cash from consumers into the pockets of oil traders and sovereign wealth funds from oil nations. The investment banks were ready and waiting to "safely invest" the money in the U.S. market.

It's not just subprime - it's student loans and credit card debt. Bush's top donor was first Enron and then MBNA, the credit card company. SEC regulation was non-existent under Cox, and Reagan judges overturned the prior director's (Donaldson) rules about hedge fund transparency. Donaldson was booted by Bush for promoting those hedge fund transparency rules.

No one in the corporate press is talking about re-regulating the financial sector, ending debt securitization, or re-introducing Glass-Steagall commercial/investment divisions in banking. Why not?

Well, Spitzer went after Wall Street and was investigated by the FBI - very unusual for prostitution cases between consenting adults, even though Spitzer seems like an idiot for visiting prostitutes while taking on the powerful finance lobby (some $400 million a year to Congress and Presidential races, not counting state and local contributions). How many people in the press are in similar positions, I wonder?

This whole series of events, from the stolen 2000 election Iraq war to Katrina fiasco to the subprime crisis involves massive corruption and wild-eyed greed across a wide spectrum of American society - it's a symptom of the collapse of empires.

Where are we going now? Afghanistan... "where empires go to die."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Do any of you feel like once upon a time, you were duped?
Posted by: Beck on Feb 22, 2009 7:51 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Because here's what puzzles me about most of these comments: the implication that everyone who watches MSM is being duped, but they don't know it. Is that it? What is the actual information that leads to this presumption? What it seems to be is this: "people don't think like me or vote like me, so obviously they've been duped, and it's certainly the MSM that did it". Or do I have it wrong? Are there some of you who used to watch "corporate news" and had a wake-up call, and find yourselves much more in the know now?

There seems to be a huge amount of fear here, fear of being controlled, to the point of having one's thoughts controlled. Or is it fear that everyone ELSE is having their thoughts controlled, and you might end up alone and isolated, like a Twilight Zone episode?

Because actually, several things seem obvious. One is that ANY political thought or ideology can take hold of someone. It's odd to me that Democrats get knocked for the exact opposite quality: our maddening tendency to be bipartisan, and attempt to see all sides of situations. Another is personal experience. My husband and I watch a variety of news shows and he especially reads most major newspapers every day. What quality exists out there that presumably makes people do similar things and end up like tape recorders or copy machines? We don't see it in ourselves. We watch the news in a state of interested skepticism. I can't imagine anyone but some Fox viewers doing otherwise. And actually, my mom watches Fox and seems pretty distant from the ideology.

So my question remains, do YOU find this impossible, watching MSM without being able to discern, or are you worried that although you can do so, no one else really can? Because it seems very sad, this idea that information is mentally irrefutable. That once you hear it, you're really like a tape recorder, stuck with it.

What it looks like to me is that there's a huge assumption that anyone with differing political viewpoints has them because they're unthinking and are being duped. THIS is the mass myth of our time, and it seems to be just as happily and unthinkingly accepted as any political myth. It's accepted because it allows all the other myths to exist. If you have to face the truth that others with differences are not dumb, not idiots, not deluded, you have to face a potential house of cards collapsing in your structure of thoughts.

Anyone have any trouble ignoring the accompanying ads here? Did you notice that there's an ad for PBS accompanying this article? Start looking. If what you notice is that ads are easy to ignore, just like boob articles are easy to ignore, well, you live in the world of discernment. Most of us do. If you gravitate to articles that bolster what you already believe or feel irked by articles that contradict your ideology, what does that say about the difference between you and anyone?

If, in some strange world, you and I were forced to watch 4 hours of Fox news a day, would that eventually control us? I doubt it. It's time to either start respecting yourselves or start respecting others.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Paulson's moral hazard and animosities were actually America's
Posted by: TJColatrella on Feb 22, 2009 10:24 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I watched this and was somewhat disappointed myself, it ended when I thought it was just about to get going...

What it did get across was how Paulson's personal animosity towards Lehman Bros. and Thune so drastically effected our nation and cost it maybe over a Trillion dollars just due to Paulson's personal animosity and his pseudo philosophy of moral hazard...

Isn't that funny these guys at Goldman Sachs' talking about moral anything..?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

frontline fan, very dissapointed
Posted by: archivist on Feb 22, 2009 12:09 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In the past Fronline has dug into stories no one else was willing to touch. In fact often they blew me away with how much I was enlightened after watching thier programs.

My main objective in watching this last program was to find out what happened on September 11th 2008 when 550 Billion dollars was drawn out of our money markets in a couple hours. This information was not covered, in fact it was skipped chronologically. Frontline is now complicit in whatever it is that is going on.

Don't trust any institution at this point. Notice how all the banks are running ads telling us that they are safe?

Ref Link: http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/559.html

If this video is not available go to datavirtue.com and email the webmaster for a copy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

forget Naitonal Pentagon Radio et al: check out TheRealNews
Posted by: tmscruggs on Feb 22, 2009 4:13 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You're reading this on an alternative web site: get your news from a half decent source, The RealNews.com.
Building an alternative on basic cable is worth our effort as much or more than pointing out the lies on mainstream corporate media.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Disappointing Documentary
Posted by: victorberry on Feb 23, 2009 4:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There were three major omissions:

(1) Who made the final call on letting Lehman go bankrupt? I contend it was Bush.

(2) What role did China, Japan, Saudi Arabia, et al play in regards to the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac rescue? Admit it, those countries would have cut us off at the knees if their GSE bonds had become worthless.

(3) Why no mention of MBS, CDO's, and other exotic financial paper? The worth of these instruments were evaluated upon creation, so surely the current worth can be determined now by the math whizzes.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

PBS (Propaganda Broadcasting System) has been gone a long time.
Posted by: waterflaws on Feb 23, 2009 8:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Any one out there, who still believes in PBS's journalistic integrity, needs to get out more. Even Bill Moyers seems compromised, so I just don't watch, anymore.

I suspect the same from NPR. I only hear NPR's news-on-the-hour product, and it's terrible!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

bear of very little brain
Posted by: percipi22 on Feb 23, 2009 10:35 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I thought the frontline thing stank....the only hint was perhaps Faber was fed the rumour about bear stearns from Pualsons office....don't you think? That the shock and awe end game was for Hank to take down his enemies... and then get the rest together to let them know they were next if they didn't take the money....so the arm twisting worked. After all a black man was going to be in the white house....i loved reading all 80 of the comments for the most part...its so nice to see so many aren't bamboozled by this crap

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Just an "accident" or an "incident"?
Posted by: talkville on Feb 25, 2009 3:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Slightly under the radar, C-Span and its channels have slowly and now more rapidly been increasing their activities in the "public" arena. C-Span is the Privately Owned analog to PBS, the directly public-owned broadcaster of news and other media products.

Wanna bet who wins out, and who goes on to "represent" the Public interest?? Wanna bet who gets shut down and phased out for reasons of "non-feasibility"??

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement