The WSJ reports that Neel Kashkari, the bailout czar, told a group of Wall Street executives that the restrictions on executive compensation in the bailout bill really don't mean anything. Of course anyone who bothered to look at the bill already knew that the compensation restrictions were meaningless before the bill passed.
So why do we only see this reported in the media after the fact? (The Post already had an article last Saturday making this point, two days after the bill passed, as did USA Today.) Why didn't any reporters go up to the proponents of the bill who were touting the pay provisions and ask them whether they were fools or liars? Isn't that what the media is supposed to do?
It looks to me like the media went into full sales promotion mode on this bailout bill, but I'm open to other explanations.
[Thanks to David Sirota for calling this one to my attention.]
Unlike many news organizations, the Prospect has remained staunchly committed to keeping our journalism free and accessible to all. We believe that independent journalism is crucial for a functioning democracy—but quality reporting comes at a cost.
This year, we’re aiming to raise $75,000 to continue delivering the hard-hitting investigative journalism you’ve come to expect from us. Your support helps us maintain our independence and dig deeper into the stories that matter most.
If you value our reporting, please consider making a contribution today. Any amount helps secure our future and ensure we can continue holding power to account.
