Her mocking coverage this week of the Occupy Wall Street protests does not mesh well with the “40-year low in America’s view of Wall Street” reported yesterday by her network. Worse, her glib clim that the US has “made money on the bank bailout” is either Scott Brown-esque in its clueless incompetence or deliberately deceptive. DailyBail:
According to the U.S. Treasury’s own figures, available publicly to any reader, including pneumatic (we understand if you need a dictionary for that one, Erin) and arrogant CNN reporters, as of TODAY, taxpayers are still more than $95 BILLION IN THE RED on TARP. And that’s including all interest and other income. There is still $122 BILLION of TARP funds that have NOT yet been paid back. We understand that Burnett was excluding GM, but she somehow missed that AIG, alone, still owes over $50 BILLION.
Perhaps her fiance, a Citigroup executive, led her astray. Glenn Greenwald wipes the floor with whatever is left of CNN and Burnett here. Money line:
Would it ever occur to CNN that perhaps a former Wall Street banker at Goldman Sachs, currently engaged to a Citigroup executive, might not be the best person to cover those protests? Of course not: that’s exactly the bias that makes her such an appropriate choice in the eyes of her Time Warner bosses.
JimC says
Maria Bartiromo got in trouble for her (alleged, never proven, but probable) relationship with a Citigroup executive. You could argue it both ways — these guys should NOT be dating members of the press. But people are people, and all that.
But the trouble, despite the obvious ethical entanglement, is that this rule has never been enforced. No male reporter has ever been asked to stop dating a government or business official. Andrea Mitchell is married to Alan Greenspan. A female writer whose name escapes me at the moment is widely believed to have dated Fred Thompson. Love conquers all?
SomervilleTom says
When a print outlet runs a story that concerns one of its corporate owners, the outlet is required to run a disclosure saying so.
I think each piece from ANY reporter with a significant personal relationship with a subject of the story should be accompanied by a bright crawl across the screen disclosing that relationship.
stomv says
CNN isn’t a small town two reporter newspaper with one down with the flu. Send a different reporter. It’s that easy.
JimC says
if her presumed beat is the entire financial world, you cannot remove Citigroup. If she’s big enough to get a show … CNN is smaller than we might think. Not many names can carry a show.
But ethics are ethics.
AmberPaw says
As I almost never watch any television – I would never have seen this. I don’t follow this woman or her show, but her body language and attack mode style is something that will guarentee I never watch her show. Aside from that, the reasons that have led to people being part of the occupy movement really are varied: unemployment (show did not deal with that), underemployment (show did not deal with that), long term unemployment (nope, did not deal with that), income consolidation (not mentioned), disparity between CEO/elite pay and worker pay (you guessed it), outsourcing (heh – what is that, not mentioned), attack on worker rights (nope, she does not care about that, I guess), and I could go on – let me know. But are the lonely, the histrionic, the exhibisionistic, and the homeless attracked to these encampments – of course. Is there an entire generation with worse prospects for the future, higher student loans, and worse prospects than any generation since 1930? Yes, but no she didn’t deal with that at all. No – this was a snippy mean girl style put down. Sorry. But I know it when I see it. As for “the facts”, how about this column Confronting the Malefactors From Erin Burnetts snarky show, one wonders if she knows what the word “malefactors” means.
AmberPaw says
word changed my word for me and I did not notice – sorry
howlandlewnatick says
I doubt that Ms. Burnett has much input into what she reads to a camera. The talking heads of media do what they’re told – not be bold. Do something on your own and you’re out.
What concerns me is that it seems the powers-that-be have been caught with their pants down on the massive protests by the people. People that previously considered themselves “left” or “right” now realize the issue is “liberty” or “slavery”.
The knee-jerk reaction was at first to ignore the situtation and now to ridicule the protesters. NYPD has tried beatings and arrests – and still the protests go on – expand.
In the past, for political conventions or “G-##” meetings the security forces had previously planned their violence through their use of agents provocateur to initiate bloody violence. This time it looks like there wasn’t a response plan ready.
Does anyone believe the governments are not planning some sort of action against the protesters? Is Senator Hatch planting the seed?
Don’t the security forces have to impersonate the victim before they initiate violence?
Does anyone expect the 1% to just walk away? Isn’t history about people that would slit your throat to stay on top? (or get somebody else to do it.) Have things changed?
“Non-violence leads to the highest ethics, which is the goal of all evolution. Until we stop harming all other living beings, we are still savages.” –Thomas A. Edison
johnd says
how do you define “massive protests by the people”?
100 people, 500, 1,000, 10,000…
petr says
… why do you ask?
johnd says
of protestors. Let’s see if they can maintain this vigil and increase it to something substantial.
kirth says
How do you define “substantial?”
johnd says
Tea Party Rally DC…
SomervilleTom says
The image you offer is the result of a highly-publicized gathering that took place after an ENORMOUS amount of media money was spent by Tea Party “supporters”.
Are you prepared to be as welcoming to the Occupy Everything movement when it fills the Mall with a similar crowd?
petr says
… as in cities. Going on greater than two weeks. That means a minimum of 1,500 per city means well over 100,000 people. That meets my definition of ‘substantial’.
Let’s see if you can maintain a silence, and increase it, until you say something factual and correct.
SomervilleTom says
Published reports say that 10,000 people turned out in Manhattan last Wednesday.
The crowds were plenty “massive” enough to provoke incidents like this:
Police pepper-spray protester
or this:
Police arrest protester
If you prefer, you see the pigs (yes, that’s what they are acting like) beating up protesters here:
Police beat up peaceful protesters
Maybe the 10,000 claimed by organizers is high, but there are WAY more than 1,000 people in these images. These are plenty “massive” enough to merit attention. Some of us have been saying since last spring that the democratic uprisings in the ME are likely to have unexpected political results.
For too many decades, the US has made its bed with some of the most oppressive regimes in the world. For too many decades, Wall Street and big-money have assumed that owning the government is the same as owning the people.
I think these protests are plenty “massive” enough to demonstrate the results of that mistaken assumption.
johnd says
then there were 10 million Tea Party protestors in DC last summer.
We’ll count how many people care about these Occupiers in Nov 2012, estimates will become “counts”!
SomervilleTom says
So you agree that the Occupy movement protests have been “massive”.
The focus of this thread is on the deceit of CNN and Erin Burnett in attempting to ignore the movement. I would remind you that the Tea Party protesters enjoyed widespread media coverage.
The protests were massive. The movement is rapidly gaining momentum. The anger against the 1% plutocracy is real and deserved. I think you may find that this movement peels of substantial portions of the tea party as the lies of those who pander to the tea party become more and more visible.
I care far more about whether this movement is able to heal the America that my children and grandchildren inherit than I do about the results of 2012 election.
johnd says
of dissent but taking action. I do disagree with you about this movement having any legs though. The unions will try to prop it up with people and Soros and others will supply money… but I think it will die. Let’s talk about it again in 3-4 months.
urban says
Have you commented on the logic of conservatives (on the offensive against government intrusiveness in free markets) railing on the Occupy Wall St group who are (wait for it) protesting government intrusiveness in free markets via TARP?
petr says
… I’m not sure there’s a ‘there’ there. I don’t get the sense that Occupy Wall Street is protesting government intrusiveness. I think they are, at heart, protesting a too cozy relationship between the Feds and Wall street; which coziness actively prevents a proper level of intrusiveness (read: regulation). I get the sense that Burnett, and all those who are similarly in bed with Wall Street, understand this all too well and this forms the active core of their disdain (and fear).
JimC says
(As usual)
Erin Burnett Should Just Apologize
gladys-kravitz says
were watching…
Just unbelievable, terrible, horrible reporting. I saw a similar (and not even as bad) segment on Inside Edition!