<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>FAIR Blog &#187; Thomas Frank</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.fair.org/blog/tag/thomas-frank/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.fair.org/blog</link>
	<description>The national media watch group</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 21:42:42 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.2</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>On Groupthink and &#039;Financial Infotainment&#039;</title>
		<link>http://www.fair.org/blog/2009/03/18/on-groupthink-and-financial-infotainment/</link>
		<comments>http://www.fair.org/blog/2009/03/18/on-groupthink-and-financial-infotainment/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Mar 2009 22:02:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Gabriel Voiles</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Economy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CNBC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jim Cramer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Thomas Frank]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wall Street Journal]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.fair.org/blog/?p=7337</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Editorializing in the Wall Street Journal (3/18/09) on how "Financial Journalists Fail Upward," Wrecking Crew author Thomas Frank sees the "world of financial infotainment" as its own "market where accountability does not seem to exist" and in which "the old order discredits itself, but the old order persists nevertheless":
This needs to be repeated every time [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Editorializing in the <strong>Wall Street Journal</strong> (<a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123734059279564981.html#mod=todays_us_opinion" target="_blank">3/18/09</a>) on how "Financial Journalists Fail Upward," <em><a href="http://us.macmillan.com/thewreckingcrew" target="_blank">Wrecking Crew</a></em> author Thomas Frank sees the "world of financial infotainment" as its own "market where accountability does not seem to exist" and in which "the old order discredits itself, but the old order persists nevertheless":</p>
<blockquote><p>This needs to be repeated every time someone pleads, "Who could have known?" Plenty of people did see the disaster coming. Most of them were <a href="http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3694">marginalized</a>, however, laboring at out-of-the-way econ departments, blogs and B-list think tanks. They were excluded and even ridiculed because their larger understanding of the economy was not one that fit well with the sort of Wall Street worship preached by the likes of <strong>CNBC</strong>....<br />
<!--preview-break--><br />
The reasons the financial-entertainment biz failed us are many and complex, but they ultimately come down to this: In the marketplace to describe the marketplace itself, there is precious little competition. There is a single, standard product that comes in packaging that is alternately sultry, energetic or fun--bitter, brainy or Cramer "<a href="http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3730">crazy</a>"--but which rarely strays beyond certain ideological boundaries.</p></blockquote>
<p>At such outlets, "Adversarial voices are few. Criticism is sacrificed for access. Advice sometimes shades over into simple propaganda." For some analysis of the current flavor of just such propaganda, listen to the new edition of FAIR's radio show <strong>CounterSpin:</strong> "Melissa Harris-Lacewell on Earmarks" (<a href="http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3735">3/13/09</a>).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.fair.org/blog/2009/03/18/on-groupthink-and-financial-infotainment/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Bipartisanship Amid &#039;the Charred Ruins of American Prosperity&#039;</title>
		<link>http://www.fair.org/blog/2009/02/19/bipartisanship-amid-the-charred-ruins-of-american-prosperity/</link>
		<comments>http://www.fair.org/blog/2009/02/19/bipartisanship-amid-the-charred-ruins-of-american-prosperity/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 19 Feb 2009 15:15:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Gabriel Voiles</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bipartisanship]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Objectivity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Thomas Frank]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Washington Post]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.fair.org/blog/?p=6037</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Calling it "obvious" that "promises to get beyond partisanship are the most perfunctory sort of campaign rhetoric, almost as empty as the partisanship itself," the latest from Thomas Frank (Wall Street Journal, 2/18/09) explains the corporate media's fetish for bipartisanship:
For the Beltway commentariat, however, transcending partisanship is the most meaningful of issues, more important, one [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Calling it "obvious" that "promises to get beyond partisanship are the most perfunctory sort of campaign rhetoric, almost as empty as the partisanship itself," the <a href="http://www.fair.org/blog/2009/01/14/on-washington-pundits-and-the-vast-silent-middle/" target="_self">latest</a> from Thomas Frank (<strong>Wall Street Journal</strong>, <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123491659161904365.html?mod=todays_us_opinion" target="_blank">2/18/09</a>) explains the corporate media's fetish for <a title="FAIR Blog: Getting Serious About Getting Serious About Bipartisanship" href="http://www.fair.org/blog/2008/11/07/getting-serious-about-getting-serious-about-bipartisanship/" target="_self">bipartisanship</a>:</p>
<blockquote><p>For the Beltway commentariat, however, transcending partisanship is the most meaningful of issues, more important, one senses, than the economic problems that trouble those people at town-hall meetings. "Nothing was more central to [Obama's] victory last fall than his claim that he could break the partisan gridlock in Washington," <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/30/AR2009013002724.html" target="_blank">wrote</a> the <strong>Washington Post</strong>'s David Broder a few weeks ago, in an altogether typical expression of media perceptions.<br />
<!--preview-break--><br />
The way I remember it, the No. 1 issue in the election was the collapsing economy, followed at some distance by the Iraq war. On both of these questions, Mr. Obama prevailed because he was the candidate who promised most convincingly to reverse Republican policies--not because he planned to meet the GOP halfway across the charred ruins of American prosperity.</p>
<p>The reason the Washington media think bipartisanship is the top issue, even when economic disaster stomps Americans like Godzilla, is because of the way it reflects their own professional standards. They are themselves <a href="http://www.fair.org/blog/2009/02/15/one-paper-three-views-on-term-limits/" target="_self">technically</a> impartial, and so it's only natural for them to wish for a hazy millennium in which everyone else in Washington is impartial, too.</p></blockquote>
<p>Frank delineates the really insidious nature of what "is supposed to be high-minded stuff, this longing for a bipartisan golden age": "In some ways it is the most cynical stance possible. It takes no idea seriously, since everything is up for compromise." See the recent FAIR Media Advisory: "Bipartisanship=Shifting Right?: Media Mull White House Failures Over Stimulus Partisanship" (<a href="http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3713" target="_self">2/3/09</a>)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.fair.org/blog/2009/02/19/bipartisanship-amid-the-charred-ruins-of-american-prosperity/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

