Economy

Neil Cavuto Admits He Is An Obnoxious Jerk

Posted by on March 8, 2009 at 12:22 pm. 5 Comments :

For some time, I’ve been meaning to write about the odious on-air personality of Neil Cavuto. While people focus much of their attention on gargantuan egomaniacs like Bill O’Reilly, and Sean Hannity, Cavuto is every bit their equal as a dishonest and unctuous jackass. But while I have been mulling over the best way to illustrate the repugnance of this pundit, Cavuto has saved me the trouble by proudly confessing his character flaws.

Last Friday Cavuto closed his program with a segment that featured letters from viewers complaining about his proclivity for interrupting. This annoying behavior is exhibited so frequently and conspicuously that I considered creating a new drinking game that called for a shot each time Cavuto interrupted someone. However, I immediately abandoned the idea because I didn’t want to be responsible for thousands of deaths by alcohol poisoning.

It seems that it was not just me that noticed Cavuto’s inability to keep his mouth shut after asking a question. His viewers must have written in in such numbers that he was forced to address the matter on air. And in a typical display of pundit Narcissism, Cavuto not only defended his incivility, he praised himself for it. He actually believes his impudence is performing a public service. How else could he say…

“God knows you’ve heard the stump speech so I demand they get off the stump. Sure, it jolts them. And clearly, you. But I am out not to be mean. I am out simply to get answers.”

Cavuto’s method of getting answers is to provide them himself. His guests become superfluous as he obviously prefers his own answers to the ones a guest might offer. His contention that he is merely attempting to short circuit a stump speech is plainly false. He doesn’t even give his guest enough time to discern whether or not the answer is substantive. By the time the guest has uttered, “Well Neil, the reason for that is…” Cavuto has already cut him off. His interruptions never compel a guest to be more responsive or clear. In fact, he interrupts almost exclusively to argue with the guest. That’s not seeking clarity, it’s browbeating. He is forcing his opinions down the throats of his viewers, and many of them resent it:

Email from Kevin: “News flash, pumpkin head, it’s not about you. It’s about the guest. Listen, you might learn. Doubt it, but you might.”

Sorry Kevin, but Cavuto is not going to listen. He has thrown down the gauntlet and refuses to waste his precious time allowing people with views different than his own to get a word in edgewise. As he said himself: “Not here. Not me. Not ever.” And although he shamelessly spews rightist propaganda, he will be the sole arbiter of what constitutes a talking point from the other side. He will nip it in the bud for fear that an honest argument or a good idea might actually make it through to his unsuspecting audience.

Along with hosting a daily program on Fox News that is ostensibly about the economy, he is the managing editor of the Fox Business Network. In this role he reports the business news of the day and conducts interviews on both financial and political subjects. His brazen partisanship belies the oft repeated excuse of Fox News CEO, Roger Ailes, that it is only the primetime shows that dabble in opinion. That nonsense simply can’t account for the self-righteous opining of Glenn Beck, Steve Doocy, Bill Sammon, Megyn Kelly, et al, all day long.

At times like these, when millions of Americans are so anxious about their jobs, homes, retirement, etc., financial news attracts a greater measure of interest than usual. The last thing any of us needs is another bloviating bully dispensing bullshit packaged as news. But that’s all we get from Fox, and Neil Cavuto is the very model of a modern major malfunction in the media.

Fox News Fires Up Financial Fear

Posted by on March 6, 2009 at 3:01 pm. 2 Comments :

It’s been going on for months. Conservatives have been pointing their fat finger of blame at Barack Obama. Somehow, perhaps by mystical Voodoo spells, Obama managed to cause a global economic collapse even before he was elected President. Earlier this week, Rush Limbaugh declared that…

“Barack Obama has been the controlling political authority on the economy for six months.”

Sean Hannity places Obama’s omnipotent dominance back even further, to May 2008. Never mind that in the first half of 2008, Republicans were insisting that the economy was in swell shape thanks to the financial acumen of their beloved George W. Bush. But all of that must now be swept aside because a new culprit must be found guilty of having soured what everyone now concedes is a disastrous economic meltdown.

To further that end, Fox News conducted a poll (pdf) to ascertain the mood of the public and their views on the leadership of the new President. Unfortunately for Fox, the poll revealed that broad majorities of the people support Obama and his policies. Democrats and Independents are distinctly separating themselves from Republicans, who are the lonely naysayers of the nation.

One question in particular stood out as I was studying the results:

Do you think all the doom and gloom talk and constant focus on the economy is actually making the economy worse, or is the talk not making much of a difference?

Making
economy worse		 Not making
a difference
Total 55% 38%
Democrats 44% 47%
Republicans 69% 28%
Independents 57% 36%

You’ve got to hand it to Fox, the domain of doom and gloom, for asking a question about “all the doom and gloom talk.” Their incessant chatter bemoaning the Obama administration and agenda is the core of their programming. No wonder Republicans in the poll are so far removed from other respondents. It is well documented that Fox has a disproportionately large majority of Republican viewers. But if Fox is truly interested in an inquiry into economic gloominess, they need look no further than themselves and their own on-air propaganda spewers:

Rupert Murdoch: …the downturn is more severe and likely longer-lasting than previously thought.

Bill O’Reilly: …our financial system is rigged and Americans should be very wary about buying stocks in this environment.

Glenn Beck: Be wary of anyone who says you should just leave your money in the stock market, because they are proving themselves incapable of seeing a real worst-case scenario.

And for good measure, Rush Limbaugh: The market is plunging. Investors are shorting it. They’re not putting money in the market. The economy is getting worse. This is being done on purpose, I believe, just as they are trying to sink the stock market.

Add to this list the names of Neil Cavuto, Sean Hannity, Dick Morris, Ann Coulter, Steve Doocy, Bill Sammon, Megyn Kelly, Fred Barnes, Charles Krauthammer, Karl Rove, etc. Virtually every Fox News contributor is contributing to the doom and gloom. And what’s more, the hard times ahead are all the fault of Obama, who has only been president for six weeks.

At a deeper level, it needs to be noted that the main thesis that these pundits peddle is simply wrong by any objective standard. They are promulgating the falsehood that Wall Street is an indicator of the nation’s economic health. It’s not! The stock market is a facility within which to assign value to shares of corporations and commodities. That value is the result of traders negotiating with one another with the purpose of generating profits for themselves. Anyone who tells you that the price of a stock at any given moment is an actual representation of a company’s worth is a liar. The only thing it represents is what a broker was able to get for that stock at that moment. If you have any doubt, just consider whether you believe that General Motors is actually worth less than $1 billion today, but was worth over $9 billion just six months ago – with the same products, the same people, and the same plants.

Wall Street isn’t tanking because of some random chatter in Washington, DC. If that were possible than Fox News is more at fault than Obama. Stocks are declining for the reason they always decline: dismal corporate earnings, collapsing markets domestically and internationally, and four million Americans unemployed and not consuming.

So let’s get this straight once and for all. The interests of Wall Street are unique and distinct from the public interest. The manic volatility of the Dow Jones index is no more an indicator of the state of the national economy than an eBay auction for a Hummel figurine. And Obama didn’t cause the decline on Wall Street by articulating a vision for improving the real fundamentals of the economy – productivity, consumption, and jobs. Progress in those areas is what will lead to the recovery that Wall Street needs.

Bill O’Reilly Can’t Get No Respect

Posted by on February 17, 2009 at 12:43 pm. 2 Comments :

In a segment preposterously misnamed “Reality Check,” Bill O’Reilly has once again tread on territory that only highlights his hypocrisy and dishonesty.

For months O’Reilly has berated General Electric and its CEO, Jeffrey Immelt, for the poor performance of the stock. O’Reilly, with an undisguised disgust, asserts that Immelt is a “despicable human being” who should not be running any business due to his incompetence. But O’Reilly conveniently neglects to mention that News Corp, the parent of his employer, Fox News, has performed even worse in the stock market, presumably placing Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes lower on the scale of competence than Immelt. We already know they are more despicable.

Yesterday, O’Reilly attacked GE and Immelt again, citing a Barron’s article with the results of their survey of the 100 Most Respected Companies in the World. The article noted that GE had slipped from its top 10 position in each of the last four years (#1 in 2005), to #43 this year. O’Reilly summarizes saying…

“In short, Barron’s is saying Immelt is a disaster. But the fact that man has remained in his position for eight years says our financial system is rigged and Americans should be very wary about buying stocks in this environment.”

Actually, Barron’s isn’t saying anything. It is a survey of the opinions of money managers, most of whom have been severely burned by the recent market collapse. Even so, if Immelt is a disaster for placing his company at #43 out of 100 companies worldwide (not bad, really), what does that make Murdoch and Ailes for not making the list at all? It certainly makes O’Reilly a propagator of misinformation for failing to tell the whole story.

Perhaps worse than O’Reilly’s faulty reporting is his admonition that Americans “be very wary about buying stocks.” Not that that isn’t always safe advice, but O’Reilly is associating it with what he calls a “rigged” system. He is using fear to dissuade the folks from investing in an already troubled market. The problem here is not whether his financial analysis is sound, it is his hypocrisy. He often assails others for bad-mouthing America, which he asserts will do harm to the nation. But he doesn’t have any problem with his own rhetorical assault, which if heeded, could worsen or prolong our current economic crisis.

Why does Bill O’Reilly hate America? Maybe because most of the country has no respect for him whatsoever.

Update: Immelt has declined to take bonuses for 2008 due to the performance of the company. I wonder if Murdoch or Ailes will do the same.

Who Wants To Be Bipartisan?

Posted by on February 14, 2009 at 1:53 pm. 1 Comments :

Who Wants To Be BipartisanFor the past week, Congress has been embroiled in a debate over solutions to the nation’s current economic crisis. Hundreds of proposals for the Stimulus Bill have been considered, from tax cuts to infrastructure spending to mortgage relief to banking reform. But to hear the media tell it, the most pressing issue in Washington was whether the administration could achieve the fabled goal of bipartisanship.

But who really wants to be bipartisan?

The short answer to that question is “the losers.” The minority in Congress wants desperately to wield some measure of influence over legislation and policy. The problem for them is that they didn’t earn it at the ballot box. The American people, in overwhelming numbers, elected Democrats to Congress and the White House. They could have voted for Republicans but, after listening to both sides, expressed a distinct preference for Democratic candidates and solutions. Consequently, the pursuit of bipartisanship by Democrats is an outright betrayal of the will of the people.

The idiocy of elevating bipartisanship as a goal unto itself is a fabrication conceived by Republicans and the right-wing dominated press. It is a battlefield that the minority party prefers because they can control it. All they have to do is enforce party discipline, instruct their members to vote against the majority, and then claim to be the victims of a partisan process that they themselves contrived.

The media goes along with this deceit for reasons of their own. For one, it produces the sort of drama they relish for boosting ratings. For another, they use it to defend themselves from false right-wing criticisms that they are a liberal leaning institution (though they never seem bothered by liberals who complain that they lean to the right). So in pursuit of controversy, reporters re-frame the debate from the substance of the bill to a manufactured desire for unity – a confounding unity of programs of the popularly elected majority with those of the recently rejected minority.

Throughout this process, it should be noted, the definition of bipartisanship has congealed into a rather useless, and perhaps harmful, mush. To be productively bipartisan would be to incorporate ideas from both sides. But what has evolved is more of a stew wherein everything is blended together until it is unrecognizable and ineffective. It’s as if a disagreement over whether to order some Japanese take-out or a bucket of chicken resulted in picking up some Kentucky Fried Sushi. Mmmm. That’s what Congress is doing and it’s going to make a lot of people sick.

Compromise, in and of itself, is not necessarily a desirable goal. Especially if one side is intent only on sabotaging the other. After all of the concessions that Democrats made on the Stimulus Bill, in the hopes of appealing to Republicans, the Republicans still stiffed Democrats, providing only three votes. Nonetheless, Republicans succeeded in diluting the bill, increasing the odds that it will fail – a result they favor as it would help them politically, albeit at the expense of millions of suffering citizens. This is both unconscionably uncaring and an affront to democracy. Americans are entitled to the government they elected, not one that is held hostage by parliamentary shenanigans.

To be sure, Barack Obama and his administration contributed to the frenzied discussion of bipartisanship. It has been a priority for them that goes back to the campaign. But they seem to have learned their lesson, as Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel admitted that the White House placed an over-emphasis on process and may have neglected reinforcing the message. Message discipline is more important than ever in the modern media environment that will pervert and distort events and intentions if left to their own devices.

The self-serving maneuvering of Republicans, however, is almost never reported by the media. So when a bill is passed with a massive majority (House: 246-183; Senate: 60-38), the media still describes it as a “Bipartisan Bust,” rather than an historic legislative victory. Every headline that says that the bill was passed along party lines fails to to make clear that one party just happens to far outnumber the other due to the voters preference.

The negative framing of these stories is purposefully at odds with the public who continue to support the Democratic program. Americans deserve more from the press. We deserve reporting that addresses issues substantively, rather than trivialized by shallow, political, pseudo-analysis. It is long past time for the press to honestly portray bipartisanship as nothing more than a partisan tactic to delay and obstruct the will of the people.