Dear Rachel: Disappointed with Last Nights Weakly Researched Reporting

[Political Heretic]

Dear Rachel,

First, may I say that I love your show, and appreciate having your voice on the air. As a self-stated policy wonk you bring a level of research and facts-first political analysis to the airwaves, and do it with a level of professional integrity not usually seen on television these days. The fact that you go out of your way to defend the accuracy of everything presented on your show is one of the reasons why it is the one "don't miss" television show in my home.

So I hope that you'll take this criticism in that spirit as coming from a big fan.

Last night you briefly reported on the federal reserves reported 51 billion dollars of profit generated from or as part of the bailout efforts undertaken first by the previous administration and then continued by the Obama administration.

You used that news to dampen republican criticism of this administration's handling of the economy, even showing job figures showing the decline in lost jobs. All true. But that was as far as your analysis went, and in doing so I felt that you left a large amount of very critical information unsaid.

The too long-didn't read version:
The Federal Reserve may have made 51 billion, but currently the government is losing money on its "loans" of bailout money to banks.

Please take a moment, if you are willing and have any sort of spare time (I'm sure you laughed just now) to take a look at this:

Obama to Announce 120 Billion Tarp Fee
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2010/01/obama-to-announce-120-billion-tarp-fee.html

Propublica: Bailout Breakdown - Losses Likely to be Larger than Treasury Estimates
http://www.propublica.org/ion/bailout/item/bailout-breakdown-tarp-losses-likely-to-be-larger-than-treasury-estimates-1

And finally, lest anyone somehow think that the banking crisis is over, I would remind them that every week since the beginning of 2008 we've had more banks continue to fail.

December 19th, 2009 - Bank Failure Friday: 7 Banks Go Down, 3 With No Buyer
http://www.propublica.org/ion/bailout/item/bank-failure-friday-7-banks-go-down-3-with-no-buyer-1219

If you found any of this worth your time, consider reading the rest:


More Detailed Analysis/Opinion
The biggest issue is not whether or not Democrats are slightly better than Republicans on the economy. The biggest issue is how, after ever economic bust, our corporations-first government re-inflates the same economic bubble, and inevitably leads our nation to a "recovery" in which we don't fully recover all that was lost from poor and working class families.

Wages for the lowest income earners have steadily declined over the last decade. Wages for the lower middle class up to median income earners have basically flatlined. We have lost more and more jobs to foreign countries. Our manufacturing sector has continued to dry up. The income disparity between richest and poorest Americans continues to exponentially widen.

This administration chose to continue a wall-street first status-quo maintaining approach to economic recovery. We will eventually start to reclaim jobs and have better GDP growth eventually, but the toll of essentially maintaining the same status quo of banana-republic style capitalism gone wild is slowly inching us toward devastation. The "change we have believe in" President and his establishment, pro-business pragmatist advisers have chosen a path of more of the same in response to economic crisis, when more of the same is not what we need.

Talk of tough regulatory reform has been mostly talk, and ignores the truth that we need more than mearly a layer of work-around regulation to address the ways in which the financial practices of Wall Street have gone crazy over the last generation - becoming ludicrous exercises in ways to invent ridiculous "rules" or "tools" to generate untold amounts of artificial "wealth." It's a lot like when children who simply want to win invent crazy, imbalanced, ridiculous "rules" for the game to guarantee that they do so.

Someone in politics needed to step up and find a courage to put a stop to this fiasco before its too late. Tragically, that has not been anyone in this administration so far.

By the way unemployment in my state, by official low-balling u3 estimates (and not the more robust U6 estimates) is at 13%. You can understand why recovery talk is offensive to my friends and neighbors here.

My best to you and your wonderful staff!
Andrew
Eugene, Oregon

[Political Heretic]

1. Bump. I realize economics talk is dull, but there's got to be some interest in discussion...

[Sinistrous]

2. Totally missed the point, eh?

[freddie mertz]

3. Great letter. Are you in Eugene now?

Great town, or so I hear.

[ShortnFiery]

4. Well done! KnR. NT.

[Lord Helmet]

5. Rachel has always been well prepared and her discussions well researched.

I think your disapproval of this president (which you've made very clear op after op) is clouding your judgment. In other words, I stand with Rachel just about all the time because she is reliably on point.

[Political Heretic]

6. No one is perfect on everything all the time.

In this instance, she and her team could have and should have done more homework in order to accurately illuminate a broader point.

Fact lead to my disapproval; disapproval doesn't lead to my "fact." I started with approval and the facts pulled me in another direction that I did not want to go. I would have much rather been happy in a society that was substantively looking up for poor folks.

Alas, twas not to be.

As far as your last sentence goes - I watch Rachel all the time because she is reliably careful with information. However I don't by default have a permanent "stance" towards anyone, and its rather bizarre and illogical that you would. I "stand" with Rachel when she's right and I don't when she isn't.

In this case, it's not even about right and wrong - its about failing to provide a much deeper context into the specifics that she is reporting. In the specifics she was factually correct. I think that the fact that political economy is not her first love or interest when it comes to policy occasionally causes her to not go deep enough on economic news or issues.

EDIT - "stone? what the heck was I typing!"

[Lord Helmet]

7. I will be glad to take your word for it if and when she issues a correction.

[Political Heretic]

8. You don't have to take my word for it, that's why I provided substantive reference material.

And she wouldn't be issuing a "correction," since the "sin" was of omission. Oversimplified reporting, not false reporting.

She would simply choose (and I'm sure she will never even read my email - I imagine the show gets hundreds) to go into greater detail about the complexity of the problems with our bailout and the long term implications and consequences of our decision to simply re-inflate the economic status quo rather than respond to the warning bells of this crisis...

[Lord Helmet]

9. Rachel is rarely wrong and I reserve the right to defer to her in this matter.

However, as I already stated I will be glad to give you props if she retracts, modifies, or corrects her analysis. I think that's fair.

[Political Heretic]

10. It's not about right or wrong. It's about providing the full context to a complex issue.

First of all, how would you know if Rachel is "rarely wrong" if every time anyone presents any other evidence or information you stick your fingers in your ears?

What do you base Rachel being "rarely wrong" on? Your will to believe?

I base it on the fact that at the same time Rachel is reporting based on her research, I do my own research. It's called peer review. No, actually its called basic critical thinking, as opposed to sitting like a mindless leming waiting to be fed information blindly.

Second of all, why are you "deferring" to anyone? Why don't you look at the information for yourself. That's what I do. I'm amazed at the mindset of some people who just sit passively and wait to be spoon fed information from sources that they decide they "trust" and never investigate or think critically about ever again.

I hate to break this to you, but as great a source as Rachel is, she's not the last word on everything. There's an entire world of news and information out there that she does not comment on or does not report simply due to time constraints or because she prioritizes issues based on what is of interest to her within the parameters that her network allows. Some stores that need more more detailed analysis are beyond the scope of her show.

[Greyhound]

11. K&R.