I think that he is an interesting character. That is what I spoke about. I think the article would have been stronger without the "the writer is a Democrat" byline, that was my point.
I agree with that. The title could have been different.
You can call them all truths, but that is through your particular lens. I used phrases like "interesting article", "nothing wrong with these views", and "interesting that it is all about sub-prime mortgages and no mention of the CDS market". Any opinion on those statements?
What is the big difference between a GSE and a CDC? In a way, can't Fannie Mae be considered a similar entity? The mortgage portfolio values were inflated, correct? I think the main issue was the way Clinton and the Democrats pushed lenders to give low credit rated people or people that couldn't afford it, home loans. IMO, that is the main cause of the problem we are facing today.
I have posted previously (within the past two days) that I think that the US entertainment news media is biased in both directions, it depends on which channel or URL you follow. I see lots of bias.
I have to disagree with that. The U.S. media (news, talk shows, actors, publications, musicians) is baised so far left it is crazy. Fox news is about the only legitimately right leaning source on mainstream TV. It cracks me up when people say that the media is not biased towards the left.
Palin's clothes? Please. Nobody is interested in Palin's clothes. They are interested in the contrast between the hockey mom image that is being sold, and her campaign's actions. Nothing to do with clothes. They look quite nice actually, IMO.
Not really true, as I said before I have family in other countries and that is all they are hearing about right now. Palin's freaking clothes. Talk show hosts here are talking about it, it is on the news, etc. I am not just talkingn about news channels, but the overall media in general. It is also funny that most talk show hosts are going all soft when it comes to questioning Obama and Biden and grilling McCain and Palin.
"On the shoulders of the Democratic Party"? OK. I think there is quite enough blame to go around on both parties, I think they both did it, but if you like, let's blame one of them and not the other. That isn't biased.
Lets see, Fannie Mae originated in 1938 as part of Democratic President FDR's New Deal;
Fannie Mae was founded as a government agency in the wake of the Great Depression in 1938, as part of Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal in order to facilitate liquidity within the mortgage market.
Then, President Clinton loosened it up a little;
In 1999, Fannie Mae came under pressure from the Clinton administration to expand mortgage loans to low and moderate income borrowers.
Then Republicans like Bush, McCain and others tried to warn that Fannie Mae was out of control and in danger. Here was the response from the Democrats;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs
Let's not forget what happened to Clinton's buddy Raines over at Fannie Mae;
On December 18, 2006, U.S. regulators filed 101 civil charges against chief executiveFranklin Raines; chief financial officer J. Timothy Howard; and the former controller Leanne G. Spencer. The three are accused of manipulating Fannie Mae earnings to maximize their bonuses. The lawsuit sought to recoup more than $115 million in bonus payments, collectively accrued by the trio from 1998–2004, and about $100 million in penalties for their involvement in the accounting scandal.
As to the point of the article, I saw it as a blast against poor quality journalism. We have raging agreement on that point. I think it would have been more effective overall if the writer had not sunk into partisan politics, and had pointed out the nonsense on both sides. That would have been a journalistic triumph. Instead, he said journalism is terrible, and it is one-sided. He immediately went into the partisan mode that he claims to despair over. I thought that was unfortunate.
The article was about one situation and the fact the the person who wrote it felt that the media's bias was obvious. I agree with him 100% that if the shoe were on the other foot, the media in general would have had a field day at the expense of the Republicans.
He got to sell more articles that way, because the Democrats will line up to hate him, and the Republicans will feel good because they are personally validated. Fine, but that isn't journalism.
I think that everything we believe is filtered through our own lens, our own values, our own understanding. You probably believe I am a Democrat, or I would guess so from your spin accusations. Nope. What I believe isn't relevant though. I was talking about journalism, not politics.
Thanks for your comments.