Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiNBC Has an Erin Burnett Problem
One of the big journalistic lessons of the Iraq War was that "embedded" reporters who get one side of the story are not well suited to give accurate information to the public.
Americans now depend on the media for accurate information about the financial crisis. This Sunday's Meet The Press made something absolutely clear: Journalists who are "embedded" on Wall Street and depend on Wall Street execs for access on a day-to-day basis are ridiculously unqualified to give the public good information about the economic crisis.
Indeed, NBC has an Erin Burnett problem. Watch and see for yourself how Burnett consistently serves an an apologist for Wall Street's worst practices:
NBC even (accidentally?) admitted Burnett's pro-Wall Street bias. Just look at the headline they put up after the show, summarizing her main message: "Erin Burnett: We must help banks." Really?
At the end of this post, I'm going to ask you to email Erin Burnett (erin.burnett@nbcuni.com) and ask her to reform her ways.
But first, here are a few of her gems from this Sunday--all of which are also in the video.
Burnett got warmed up by talking about how the public is completely confused when we're worried how bailout recipients are spending our money:
It is amazing, when you listen to so much of the commentary out there, that it focuses on bonuses or private jet use or, or also just that they're not lending. None of these things, really, are, are the real issue here...it isn't choosing Main Street vs. Wall Street. That is a completely false choice that is being put out there.
Her "embed" status was on full display when Claire McCaskill's comments about Wall Street bonuses came up. Notice how dismissive Burnett is of populism (aka, politicians speaking to the will of the people -- that quaint and silly notion):
SEN. CLAIRE McCASKILL (D-MO): They don't get it. These people are idiots. You can't use taxpayer money to pay out $18 billion in bonuses. What planet are these people on?(End videotape)
MR. GREGORY: Fair question, Erin?
MS. BURNETT: I understand the outrage, and you understand the populism. There are, though--well, how should we say this? The taxpayer money is not being used to pay the bonuses. I think people could understand if you work for a company--right? If the three us worked for a company, your guests, and I lost $10 billion but Steve [Forbes] over there, he made a billion dollars. So overall the company actually loses money, but Steve went and did his very darndest for that company and he made money. So should he be paid for his work? That's essentially what we're talking about here. And reasonable people could argue about this, but many reasonable people would conclude, yes, he should be paid for that. And I think, David, you've raised a fair point, which is maybe it's the whole use of the word "bonus."
MR. GREGORY: Mm-hmm.
MS. BURNETT: If you explained to people this is how they are compensated, that might make a difference. But there is also a fundamental misunderstanding. The taxpayer money isn't being taken and paid out in the form of bonuses. It goes in a, a separate pool, shall we say, a separate account for banks. So maybe people don't care about that distinction, but it is there.
Say it with me: Wow!
First of all, I hope you caught the channeling of Sarah Palin in there. Knowing that Wall Street execs are doing their "darndest" to make money shines a whole new light on things, doesn't it?
Second, isn't it good to know that you're, how should I say this, stupid? You thought an executive's "bonus" was a bonus! Silly member of the public. If only you understood.
Third, can I borrow ten bucks? Thanks. "Hey, everyone, watch me make a paper airplane with this ten bucks, and...there it goes away!" What? No, I didn't just throw away your ten bucks. That came from a "separate pool." Who are you anyway? Oh, a member of the public. That explains it. You just don't, how should I say it, understand anything. Can I borrow another ten bucks?
I've worked with a lot of reporters, and most of them are very nice people. I'm sure Burnett is pleasant as well. But what she's doing here professionally is a real problem, and it's NBC's problem at the end of the day. The public simply can't afford to have economic news given to us by Wall Street "embeds."
We need Burnett to listen to her Wall Street sources, be skeptical of them, ask them very tough and sometimes uncomfortable questions, and be willing to report negatively on them when they abuse the public trust. If they never talk to her again, so be it. Donald Rumsfeld won't talk to some reporters either -- and where is he today? Disgraced in history.
Please email Erin Burnett today and let her know we need responsible reporting: erin.burnett@nbcuni.com
(It's also worth noting that the guests Meet The Press invited on to discuss the economic crisis were Erin Burnett, Steve Forbes, and Moody's Mark Zandi -- all Wall Street voices. There was no progressive voice like Paul Krugman there to stick up for the public. If you want more balance on Meet The Press roundtables, take a moment to give them feedback here.)
44 Comments so far
Show AllErin Burnett has an "Erin Burnett" problem. I read this article:
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2266343/erin_burnett_in_london_and_at_the_burj.html?cat=3
She's really got to shape up or ship out
rainmker February 4th, 2009 9:11 am, "The key difference however being that my company wasnt accepting government money."
You cited the key difference -- if the company is private, it is free to pay its employees however it wishes; if it is using taxpayer money to stave off bankruptcy, however, then those policies of compensation are, and should be, different.
I would take issue with this line: "Still, if your compensation is based largely on performance, you meet your performance objectives, but are not compensated appropriately, then you may choose to go somewhere else."
I would tell them to take care not to let the door hit them on the way out. In this case, the 'somewhere else' they might go for a six-figure or more job is also likely receiving a government bailout. Aside from that, most of these executives performed well in the short term, but ultimately established a long term situation where their businesses needed a bailout to avoid extinction. It might be nice to reward the losing team for being ahead in one quarter, but that's not the way the game is played.
"I'm not suggesting that we should have sympathy for well compensated bankers, but we do live in a capitalist society and we're approaching very dangerous waters when we start telling companies how to compensate their employees."
I agree, if the company is private. When a company begins accepting money from the government -- the taxpayer -- they are no longer really a capitalist enterprise and we, who are putting up the money, should call the shots.
I realize this will probably send me to liberal hell, but I actually think that people are missing the point here. This issue of bonuses is one of compensation. If you choose to be an investment banker or other type of money manager, you chose that profession because you wanted to make money. If you worked for GE last year and you had a good year (because compensation is results-based) but your company had an awful one, it would probably tick you off if you were told that you wouldnt receive a bonus. As a former sales-rep, my last year in sales I ran into a similar situation. The key difference however being that my company wasnt accepting government money. Still, if your compensation is based largely on performance, you meet your performance objectives, but are not compensated appropriately, then you may choose to go somewhere else. I'm not suggesting that we should have sympathy for well compensated bankers, but we do live in a capitalist society and we're approaching very dangerous waters when we start telling companies how to compensate their employees.
Common sense+Burnett=Outrage & Crimes divided by populism +Burnett= comforting nonsense.
Claire McCaskill said something about needing a two by four to get the point across regarding the importance of accountability in war profiteering, but it looks like with imbred wall street apologists, it will take something more like a pat on the head and a glass of warm milk before sending her off to work where her skill set matches her job duties. I'm thinking......air line hostess?
What happens when snowflakes stick together?...............friends come together and have snow ball fights. :)
Leea
Bring America Back !!!! ok I am a single guy, and I sure would not mind having an Erin Burnett problem. Mmmmmmm
dark hair, blue eyes, eeeeeyoooowwwwwwwww !!!
I'm going to pray that you get only the problems you desire. Eeeeeeyoowwwww indeed, lol!
What happens when snowflakes stick together?...............friends come together and have snow ball fights. :)
Leea
Those comments by Ms. Burnett are beyond stupid: I hereby renounce the degree I got from the same college this maroon attended.
This Burnett chick drives me up the wall. Of course she's gonna shill for Wall Street, w/o Wall Street, this girl wouldn't have a job! That's what women like her do. They try to make greed "sexy."
I read a quote from her once where she said that "The real news is rarely ever right-wing or left-wing."
Does a janitor get a bonus if he unclogs a backed up toilet or cleans an extra floor that day because someone called off?
Does a bus driver get a bonus because she made it to her stops on time despite a traffic jam?
Would I get a golden parachute if I say got fired for smacking an obnxious co-worker?
Hey I'd do it for a cool ten million.
But the public is "dumb", right Erin? They're against bonuses and bailout and corporate welfare. We don't know any better.
Unbelieveable.
"As to the US slaves 'rising up at once in protest,' I am not holding my breath."
It's happened before it will happen again.
Socialism is a simple as a drop of water. Capitalism is a tangled bundle of electrical cords, twine, and string.
Thank you Mr. Green for saying what I was thinking after Ms. Burnett explained about the bonuses and I switched my t.v. off! It was repugnant to me, that Meet the Press had this woman as an apologist for Wall Street. It didn't help that the other two were no better.
I will not email Ms. Burnett, as I believe that she deserves the same treatment as Rush Limbaugh -- just turn them off!
NBC = GE. The individual reporters, whatever apparently different positions they assume, are just putting on a Punch and Judy show for us, and by pretending they actually espouse truly different points of view we are willing spectators.
Excuse me, but that is NOT the way it works. Our at least from my knowledge at having programmed the whole thing once upon a time for a wall street firm. The Partnership determines the bonus pool after year has ended. It is then divied up according to departments, taking into account last years percentages, and factors such as guarenteed bonuses, e.g. for people who were inticed from another firm and had a particular bonus promised as a part of joining up with the firm. The departments then take their "cut" and divide it according to performance, etc. At this point there is considerable jocking for "More" of a cut, etc. Finally, it is re-submitted back to management and the checks are cut. (Simplifed for you, of course ... it is a bit more complex) But the point being, the initial amount of the pool comes from the firms "profits". If the firm is on the take for a juicey bailout amount, how is there any profit?
A Maine Man
Easy. That magic separate pool of taxpayer money magically appears in the account for the corporation's profits :-)
Separate accounts, for the love of G-d, does that retarded woman know what electronic transfers are?
I intern at MMFA, and I can tell you, even the conservative media hates CNBC right now, they know it's full of crap. But they're more angry about its favorable portrayal of Tim Geithner before his confirmation (because he's a Wall Street shill, and GE, which owns NBC, also has a financial division of its own)
Ray Berthiaume
I used the given e-mail address but could not send a message to Erin@
Forget about Erin Burnett.
Dave Lindorff has a blockbuster revelation in his newest article.
Remember in September when Fed Chairman Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Paulson said the banking system was perhaps days away from collapse and they needed hundreds of billions of dollars IMMEDIATELY to fix it? Well it appears that indeed the "fix" was in. Apparently it was as much of a whopper as Iraqi WMD.
From Lindorff:
"...may be that there wasn’t any danger of a meltdown in the first place. So say three senior economists working at the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, who in October examined the Fed’s own data, and concluded in an article titled Facts and Myths About the Financial Crisis of 2008 that the claims that interbank lending and commercial lending had seized up were simply not true. “Bank lending to consumers and to non-financial companies had not ceased, and banks were lending to each other at record levels,” says V.V. Charri, an economist at the Minneapolis Fed. “Maybe Bernanke and Paulson had information that they were not making public, but the available data simply did not support what they were saying.” Charri and his colleagues and co-authors Lawrence Christiano and Patrick Kehoe agree that with companies like Lehman Brothers, AIG and Citigroup foundering because of toxic debt instruments, there was a sense of a financial crisis brewing, but they say it wasn’t a credit freeze. “This was a lot like the run-up to the Iraq invasion in 2003,” says Charri. “You had people in government saying: 'We’re smart guys, trust us.’ But they were either wrong or they were lying.”
Adds Kehoe: “Normally, when you’re going to spend a lot of money, you present the data and the economic theory to support it, yet here’s the biggest non-military government intervention in history since the Great Depression, and there was no evidence presented to support it, and no detailed economic argument made about what market failures this $700 billion was going to fix.”
Full article:
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/39461
The reason no evidence is offered because the asserting party knows that the American public is impotent politically and economically.
The Congress and Executive branches are run by the bandits, so consent is easy to manufacture.
I guess I haven't missed much on NBC but lies. Good thing I don't have much to watch anyway. Let's all not watch the channels and let them fail. We might get somewhere.
Terrance Mitchell
Redfield, South Dakota
I should start by saying that the first lies that Erin told us were relatively benign. Still, they have been progressing. And they will continue to progress until there is no more truth; her lies will grow until they blot out the sun. She is a blatant enemy of peace, stability, and human progress. Not only that, but some empty-headed televangelists actually believe that anyone who disagrees with her are ultimately hippies. This is the kind of muddled thinking that she is encouraging with her hatchet jobs. Even worse, all those who raise their voice against this brainwashing campaign are denounced.
Erin's maudlin preoccupation with mercantalism, obscured with such nonsense as "Main Street vs. Wall Street", would make sense if a person's honor were determined strictly by his or her ability to control what we do and how we do it. As that's not the case, we can conclude only that Erin believes that the rules don't apply to her. Sorry, but I have to call foul on that one. You know, it strikes me that she is out to erase history. And when we play her game, we become accomplices. But it takes perseverance to detail the specific steps and objectives needed to thwart Erin's abysmal schemes. While reading this, you may have occasionally asked yourself, "Where is all of this leading?" and, "What is the point exactly?" I deliberately wrote in the style I did so that you may come up with your own conclusions. Erin is a poor straw woman. Therefore, I leave you with only the following: "Photo-telegraphically" is sometimes narrowly defined by gutless robber barons. If Erin didn't exist, they'd create her anew.
I was watching Meet the Press sunday morning and was appalled at Ms. Burnett's remarks and their tone, while being seduced by her hot, young girl-next-door countenance. I decided I had to write to her, as the article urged. Just thought I'd share my email:
Hello Erin-
As a member of the populace, I'm writing to tell you how disappointed
I am in the tone and content of some of your remarks about Wall St. in
this Sunday's "Meet The Press". Your attempt to defend executive
bonuses, in the wake of a massive taxpayer funded bailout necessitated
by the actions of many of the very people who received these bonuses,
came off as a cheap game of semantics:
"The taxpayer money isn't being taken and paid out in the form of
bonuses. It goes in a, a separate pool, shall we say, a separate
account for banks."
All of these monies, whether pooled together or not, are funds that
these companies could have used to improve their long-term situations
rather than reward people who have made serious mistakes. To try and
make a distinction between these monies does not serve the interests
of NBC's viewing audience, in my opinion.
And why the condescending references to "populism"? Do you dislike "we
the people"? Your Wall St. "embed" status and the apparent resulting
disdain for the bottom 99.9% of us saddens me. Say it aint so!
And finally, Would you like to discuss this further over dinner? :)
I live in NC, but for a dinner date and some lively economic policy
debate I'd be willing to meet you wherever...and pay!
Seriously,
gd
Ms. Burnett, the Judy Miller of high finance.
Sioux Rose
WINNING: Exactly!
Thank you Sioux Rose. Take care always!
I invite folks to visit DeepCapture and discover just how distorted the financial and other press are. It will take several hours of your time, but the education received is well worth the effort.
Essentially, there is NO responsible business or financial press in the USA. It's easier to use what you hear in a contrarian way--the opposite of what's said being true.
CNBC was the channel that helped create the Nasdaq Bubble that ultimately popped in March of 2000 resulting in what was then the biggest crime in U.S. history, $7 trillion.
They had a dozen analysts on a day screaming to buy some stock that was already overvalued by a factor of ten (that never had even one quarter of earnings).
For a period of at least three years (that I watched) they NEVER once asked the analysts if they owned the stock they were pumping or did investment banking for the company.
Not once.
This scandalous lack of ethics was rewarded.
I don't remember any of their "personalities" being fired.
I'm sure it was an honest mistake on their part.
I'm sure there was nothing illegal going on between anyone at CNBC or the Wall Street Banks.
After all, it's been illustrated just how ethical both these institutions are these past couple years.
Cygnus-X1-isaHole February 2nd, 2009 7:12 pm, I heard this same scam was going on with some of the 'Money' show people at CNN. They'd pump up a part of the market, say certain housing stocks, and then quietly dump their shares, taking advantage of the increase in price. Just as bad, they'd present two people who supposedly represented opposing points of view, but each would then agree on buying a stock where they both had vested interests undisclosed to the audience. What a shameful disgusting game.
Sioux Rose
KARLOF: I read the whole thing and it makes the mafia look like amateurs.
Lord, why doesn't she get a nose job? Looks like a ski jump.
Help is coming On February 17, 2009 when all full-power broadcast television stations in the United States will stop broadcasting. We can see the 'news' on Movietone or 'read all about it' in Grimm's Fairytales.
I'm not an apologist for wall street or the reporter in question, but this article is pretty dumb.
All the author does repeat the journalist's point, and he does not deal with her assertion that "bonuses" are more like commissions. There's nothing, beyond name-calling, to counter the reporter's argument.
Personally, I have concluded that the bonus issue, as framed, is a distraction. I don't think our Congressional leaders or Obama are being credible in their criticism. THEY ARE THE ONES WHO WROTE AND WILL WRITE THE LEGISLATION. It only takes a few sentences paragraphs to specify how the funds can be used.
The article is indeed weak. But Burnett conveniently ignores the corollary to her point. If people who do well deserve a bonus, even if their company as a whole goes through the floor, then the corollary is that, the people who caused the company to go through the floor should be punished: their assets and income seized, for instance.
Notice how people like Burnett conveniently ignore this corollary. That is the problem with the arguments of people like Burnett. They want (huge) rewards for success, but are unwilling to accept punishment for failure.
U.S. Citizen
They pass the legislation that is either written by Wall Street or paid for by Wall Street in the form of campaign contributions. They definitely did fail with TARP. While Burnett's and your portrayal of bonus versus compensation may be a legitimate point, executive compensation (whether you call it salary or bonus) is way too high and should be restricted if the company takes government money. Another point, is that there is a good possibility that excessive compensation and dividends drained these companies so they had no reserves when things went bad. Instead, they had to turn to corporate welfare.
Forgive me; but just speaking for myself, what I resent is that these hooligans that helped run the economy into the ground feel that they are entitled to bonuses. Sure if a company does well, then there is a case for bonuses; but bonuses should never be paid to these people who have helped destroy dreams and lives. Call me Mr. Insensitive, but I really don't feel too sorry for these thugs and hooligans (Oh I'm sorry, am I not being nice?) that are on the receiving end of the name calling. After all they are laughing all the way to the bank. So I don't think these clowns are worried about hurt feelings.
OK winning ticket, I forgive you. Good points ... with umph.
Thank you cd. Appreciate you letting me vent. Thanks for being a good sport. Take care.
It is pretty obvious that if X gambles, on the market or elsewhere, with a large sum of Other People's Money, and if the taxpayer pays if the gamble is a catastrophic failure, it is inappropriate for X to receive a percentage if the gamble has a big payout. That is like free money, just gamble wildly and only take the gains. In that situation, even the most incompetent and irresponsible banker in history could not help but become extremely wealthy. I believe that is why there is so much outrage at the bonuses.
Sioux Rose
KIVALS: Well-said. When so many work for "merit" pay, why should the rich receive regardless of the merit or lack thereof with respect to their "product?"
Yea, it is a bit of a scam, and its acceptance by the general population has to do with how the situation is presented. Viewing X in isolation, if X makes a 10 percent return on $10 billion in OPM (other people's money), then it almost sounds plausible that X has "earned" a 10 percent bonus on the profit, even if the bonus amounts to $100 million (10 percent of 10 percent of $10 billion is $100 million). However, when viewed in the broader context, when it becomes clear that X is merely gambling in a market of unbounded complexity where no one can really know the outcome, and sometimes X "wins" and gets $100 million out of $1 billion profit, sometimes it is a draw, and sometimes X loses X's bet and the other people lose the $10 billion while X loses no money of X's own, the situation appears clearly out of balance.
Such bonuses seem even more outrageous if the taxpayers may have to pay, as in the case where X's bet may result in $20 billion of losses in total, when X is just playing with $10 billion of OPM. So X gambles with OPM, and sometimes in a way that risks more than that OPM, with only upside for X and no downside. That does not even follow the basic rules of the market. In short, if X does not have to pay a percentage when X loses, and it is usually impossible for X to pay any significant percentage when the funds are in the billions, then X should not get a percentage when X wins the bet.
Sioux Rose
KIVALS: You have such a mathematical mind! I wouldn't be surprised if you were among those who drew up the dimensions of the original Pyramids.
I think we'd both agree that there ought to be a limit. Someone else (I apologize as I can't recall the individual's name) in this forum recommended a very sane income ceiling. Seeing how so much wealth is now at the top of the pyramid, where the weight can't balance, our economy is coming apart from below... new rules of engagement MUST be presented. The old guard wants to maintain things are they are, they are sociopathically oblivious to the PAIN their financial priorities are costing MILLIONS (maybe billions) of persons. I start to get Cecil B Demille flashbacks of all the slaves rising up at once in protest, no longer willing to slave all day to make monuments to these pharaohs who would just as soon run over them with their chariots.
We could certainly use new rules of engagement. The whole income structure of a capitalist market system is fundamentally flawed, and the bright capitalists know it but they will never admit it. There are virtually no limits on the upside in terms of income for the capitalist, but on the downside, there is a limit on the loss, which at the least should be all the wealth of the capitalist, but in the corporate system it is just what the capitalist invested in that enterprise. But it is not that the total costs are limited, it is just that the portion of the cost borne by the capitalist is limited (if the loss to the capitalist is limited, the gain to the capitalist should be limited, supporting the idea of an income ceiling). Because of this imbalance, the entire valuation system in the "free market" is fundamentally flawed. But as the most clever capitalists recognize this, they also recognize that part of the game is convincing the unsophisticated that the game is fair and they should participate, so that they may be fleeced.
As to the US slaves "rising up at once in protest," I am not holding my breath.
A few months ago, MTP often had Burnett and Maria Bartiromo, but it seems NBC dropped Bartiromo as a frequent panelist after she effusively praised Palin's knowledge and sophistication in economic matters. I guess that was going just too far.
But generally, isn't putting on beautiful young women to spout the plutocrats' propaganda just part of the FOXing of NBC?
Sioux Rose
KIVALS: I was thinking the same thing. It's always bothered (sometimes amused) me that BAD news is delivered nightly by tooth-shiny beautiful people; and even The Weather Channel uses mostly handsome types while so often placed before cameras to dole out the bad news, where the latest tornado is headed, whose homes were flooded, which way the winds of hurricane change are blowing, etc. It's all part of a society that has mastered packaging while eviscerating contents.
Siouxrose February 2nd, 2009 3:18 pm, Hi Sioux Rose. I don't know about Erin Burnett in particular, but sometimes these financial reporters and 'gurus' have no real hands-on experience in the subject -- last week they may have been the 'weather bunny' and they were simply promoted to 'financial reporter.' As far as the 'gurus,' Suze Orman was a waitress who invested in some stocks with a high return based on tips from her regular customers. Thus her lucrative career writing books and giving seminars on how to invest your money was based on 'insider trading' in a sense.
In Burnett's case, her bias seems 'embedded' from a young age; asking her to comment objectively on Wall Street would be like asking Himmler for an unslanted assessment of the Third Reich:
"Burnett began her career in 1998 as an analyst for Goldman Sachs in their investment banking division, where she worked on mergers and acquisitions and corporate finance.
"While working as an investment-banking analyst, Burnett was offered a position at CNN as a writer and booker for CNN's Moneyline with Stuart Varney, Willow Bay, and Lou Dobbs.
"From CNN, she moved to Citigroup, where she served as Vice President for Citigroup/CitiMedia, and was responsible for all anchoring of the Citigroup online financial news network. ...
Burnett accepted a position in 2003 with Bloomberg Television, where she was the anchor of Bloomberg on the Markets, covering the stock market open and newsmaker interviews, and In Focus, where she broke down the day's top business story.
"Burnett is currently the host of CNBC's Street Signs and co-anchor of Squawk on the Street. Since making her debut on Squawk in December 2005, the program's ratings are up 142% over first quarter 2006 in adults 25-54; while Street Signs is up 57% in the same demographic. ..."
-- From the Wikipedia Erin Burnett entry.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Erin_Burnett&action=edit§ion=3
"It's all part of a society that has mastered packaging while eviscerating contents."
Too true.
Ms. Burnett expects us to forget that money is fungible--without the government hand outs, there is no cash to hand out for bonuses. It is interesting that schools can be closed for flunking No Child Left Beyond standardized testing, with teachers and administrators fired despite trying their "darndest" but somehow multimillionaire banking executives are supposed to get our sympathy and our tax money for having a bad year or decade.