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.]
There's too much at stake this November for us to quit. As we navigate another presidential election year, thoughtful independent journalism is more important than ever. We're committed to bringing you the latest news on what's really happening across the country this election season, shining a light on the stories corporate media overlooks and keeping the public informed about how power really works in America.
Quality reporting doesn't come for free, and we don't have corporate backers to rely on to fund our work. Everything we do is thanks to our incredible community of readers, who chip in a few dollars at a time to make what we do possible. This month, we're trying to raise $50,000 to help fuel our election coverage, and we've fallen behind on reaching our goal. Any amount you give today will bring us closer to making our reporting possible—and a generous donor has agreed to match all online donations, so your impact will be doubled.
