We need to know one thing and it's
an important thing to suss out.
Is the corporate media incompetent?
Or are they just plain evil in
the way that they frame any type of
negotiation regarding social
spending?
Now, case in point, recently The
New York Times had a fascinating
lengthy piece on Representative
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, titled
Ocasio-Cortez Isn't Wavering,
are New Yorkers on Her Side?
And the sub headline there is,
by voting no on the infrastructure
bill, Representative
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
set off a fierce debate,
including among city residents
eager to see the subways improved.
Now, Representative Ocasio-Cortez
was one of the progressive
lawmakers who did the right thing
in refusing to vote in favor of
the corporate handout bill,
also known as the bipartisan
infrastructure bill.
That was the bill that was promoted
by the US Chamber of Commerce.
That was the bill that received
support among Republicans in both
the Senate and the House,
19 In the Senate, 13 in the House.
And it was great to see AOC stay
true to what her promise was,
along with other members of
the squad by the way.
Because the whole point was that
progressives would vote in favor of
the bipartisan infrastructure bill
if and only if there was passage of
Biden's Build Back Better agenda,
which has all the social spending
in it.
All of the provisions that
progressives of course prioritized,
but more importantly would benefit
the lives of constituents that
these lawmakers represent.
Now, the context of course is
important.
But The New York Times didn't get
into the context.
They didn't get into the context
regarding how corporate Democrats,
certainly corporate Democrats like
Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema, and
the Senate didn't hold up their
side of the promise or
their side of the deal.
They were supposed to go along with
the reconciliation bill as long as
they got passage of the bipartisan
infrastructure bill.
They didn't hold true to their
promises, but that context was
missing in this piece.
Instead, get a load of the framing
that you'll come away with
as you read this story.
Here's what the lead was.
This is the first paragraph
in their story.
As the number six train,
subway train.
As the number six subway train
creaked toward an elevated Bronx
station on Tuesday,
one of Representative Alexandria,
Ocasio-Cortez's constituents stood
across the street struggling to
understand his Congresswoman's
opposition to the most
sweeping public works legislation
in generations.
Then they move on and say,
the infrastructure bill which
passed the House last week, offers
New York billions of dollars.
And it was a top priority for
President Biden,
Congressional Democrats, and
even 13 Republicans,
4 of them from New York.
This is the third paragraph.
Yet Ocasio-Cortez and five fellow
progressives voted against it.
They argued that the bill was
too modest and
sought to use their votes to
pressure wavering moderates to
support a bigger climate and social
safety net bill that is pending.
No mention of corporate
Democrats and how they failed
to fulfill their side of the deal.
No mention about any of the context
that's relevant in informing
AOC's decision to vote against that
legislation.
Now again,
those are the three paragraphs in
the very beginning of the article.
There's also no mention about how
the bipartisan infrastructure bill
includes provisions
that would actually be incredibly
unpopular with AOC's constituents.
Provisions for instance, that would
allow for the privatization
of public infrastructure.
Which means that corporations would
be managing that infrastructure,
and of course, would
be implementing tolls and fees that
Americans would have to pay as
they're getting to and from work.
No mention of that provision at all
by The New York Times.
They also didn't get into an
analysis in regard to how exactly
the bipartisan infrastructure bill
would benefit AOC's constituents.
They vaguely mentions spending for
public transportation.
They vaguely mention a number,
billions of dollars.
Now remember,
the bipartisan infrastructure bill
only allocated about $550
billion dollars in new spending.
So what portion of that is going to
help New Yorkers with
their public transit system?
New York Times doesn't get
into any of that.
But they did just kind of vaguely
talk about it or write about it as
if it would overwhelmingly benefit
the lives of New Yorkers.
Okay, I mean, it's not true,
there are certainly huge issues
with the bill, but
they didn't get into that.
Now, they love to cite anecdotal
evidence for how AOC's decision to
vote against the bipartisan bill
is incredibly unpopular in her
district, so unpopular.
Now, did they provide
a representative poll to make
that point?
Because a representative poll of
the constituents in that district
would give you a better idea of
whether or not her constituents
disagree with her decision.
They didn't do that.
But they're like, let's just
find find some people in New York,
in this district who didn't
like her vote.
And they gave the example of
Emmett Ellen Allen, who says this,
right mindset, speaking about AOC's
decision, the wrong execution.
And there are other comments like
that sprinkled
throughout the article.
But again,
anecdotal evidence is not the same
as maybe having a representative
poll that shows how constituents in
that district really feel.
Nonetheless, the other paragraph
that I want to draw attention to is
where they write that even in her
New York city district, perceived
as one of the most liberal in
the nation, there are sharp
disagreements unfolding over how
far left the party should go.
And how change is best achieved,
according to interviews, get this,
with more than a dozen
constituents, elected officials,
and party leaders.
Fascinating.
So what portion,
what percentage of the dozen or
three dozen people that you talk to
represent her constituents?
because there's a lot of people
mixed in that group of interviews.
You've got some constituents, but
then you have elected officials and
party leaders.
I'm guessing elected officials and
party leaders who have probably
been pretty transparent about
the fact that they can't stand
the progressive wing
of the Democratic Party.
But we don't get any details about
the specific individuals that they
interviewed here.
Let me give you more though.
They blame her.
They blame AOC for being divisive.
They don't mention Joe Manchin.
They don't mention Kyrsten Sinema.
They don't mention the fact that
Sinema would literally run away
from her own constituents as
they're trying to ask questions
about legislation
that she purported to support.
And now all of a sudden has
completely abandoned her base on,
they didn't get into that.
They didn't talk about how divisive
that was, but they did talk
about how divisive AOC is,
allegedly, that she's divisive.
She's the big baddie.
She's the one
who denied corporations or
try to deny corporations those
sweet sweet government contracts.
How dare she?
But let me give you more.
They finally provide a positive
comment about AOC in the fifth
paragraph?
No.
The tenth paragraph?
No.
15th paragraph?
No.
They waited until the 16th
paragraph of the article to provide
a positive comment on AOC.
And it comes from an assemblyman
Zoran Kwame, who says this.
All I've heard across the district
has been support for
the decision that she made.
A lot of that is based on the fact
that she was elected on the promise
of fighting for more than the
crumbs we've been told to accept.
And he's absolutely
right about that.
And then my favorite part about
this piece is how
The New York Times decides to
conflate AOC's constituents
with the business community.
Going so
far as to include the Chamber of
Commerce in the same sentence
as her constituents.
Here it is. They write, some
constituents, business leaders, and
elected officials say that day to
day she's not always accessible.
Ideology sometimes has to go out
the window when it comes to
bringing home the bacon, says
Thomas Gresh, the chief executive
of the Queen's Chamber of Commerce.
Who said he has never been able to
successfully schedule a meeting
with the Congresswoman.
By the way that speaks very highly
of AOC.
Look, I will criticize AOC when I
think she deserves the critique.
Not taking up a meeting with
the head or the VP of
the Queen's Chamber of Commerce is
something I can get behind.
Go ahead and cry more Grish, but
I'll give you more from this piece.
Again, there's no mention of how
Manchin and Sinema didn't uphold
their part of the deal.
All the blame was on AOC and
how she's so, so bad.
So aughty for
not voting in favor of
the bipartisan infrastructure bill.
There was again no explanation or
analysis of what's even in
the bipartisan infrastructure deal
and how it would be so great for
its constituents, right?
No mention of that.
And so the real question here, and
I want to ask you guys because this
isn't the first time that we've
talked about it this week.
The media is framing on
progressives versus the corporate
wing of the Democratic Party.
We've seen it happen time and
time again.
So the real question is, and
we have a pool on this,
tyt.com/polls.
Is The New York Times incompetent
or evil in the way that they've
been covering this story?
And by the way,
I want to give you another example.
This isn't necessarily about
The New York Times specifically,
but we have noticed something very
specific in the way the cable news
networks are reporting on the Build
Back Better agenda, on inflation.
Remember, we shared a story with
you regarding former
Treasury Secretary Larry Summers,
who I'm not a massive fan of.
But he has been raising alarm over
inflation in our economy.
But the way that the media was
reporting on it literally twisted
his words, right?
They put words in his mouth when,
according to the op-ed he wrote
this week in The Washington Post,
this is what he thinks the solution
needs to be in response to
inflation.
He writes, let's not compound
errors that have already been made
with far too much fiscal stimulus.
He's talking about
the Federal Reserve here and
overly easy monetary policy by
rejecting Build Back Better.
The legislation would spend
less than ten years
then was spent on stimulus in 2021.
Because that spending is
offset by revenue increases and
because it includes measures such
as childcare that will
increase the economy's capacity.
Build Back Better will have only
a negligible impact on inflation.
So Larry Summers is being
very clear there.
He's saying, look, I'm not saying
that the solution or the response
to inflation should be to
kill the build back better agenda.
But if you watch cable news,
they'll tell you a different story.
They'll put words in
Summer's mouth.
Just watch.
>> Summers, he pointed this week to
the $1.9 trillion American rescue
plan that was passed earlier this
year in March.
He said that's a major reason
behind the rising inflation,
something he called at the time,
quote the least responsible
macroeconomic policy we've
had in the last 40 years.
Is it possible that Americans
are suffering now from high prices
because the Biden administration
over stimulated the economy
with all of this money
going into the economy?
>> The inflation thing is so
real that everybody acknowledges
it now.
>> Of course it's not
just Republicans.
I mean, Larry Summers has worried
about it openly and Joe Manchin
worries about it quite rightly.
And the problem Joe Biden has is
that it's going to affect
the passage of Build Back Better.
>> They've already created a lot of
harm this year with the previous $2
trillion inflation,
which they passed this year without
a single Republican vote.
It created ranging inflation,
which Larry Summers,
the last honest Democrat in town,
admitted was going to happen.
Predicted was going to happen.
So the best way to sum up
the impact of this package, if the
Democrats pass it and of course it
will be all by themselves, is they
double down on all the mistakes
they've already made this year.
>> Yeah, well, I thought you put
it. Well, I mean, and Larry Summers
deserves a lot of credit.
>> Larry Summers deserves a lot
of credit.
Unless you actually read his op-ed
and notice that he doesn't want to
kill the social spending bill.
That he's actually blaming
inflation on the behavior that
we're seeing from
the Federal Reserve.
Cheap money in the economy allows
for private equity to borrow at
near zero interest rates and
invest that money in real estate,
single family homes, which has
an inflated housing prices.
And that spilled over into
the rental market as well.
They didn't get into that.
Because it seems like, I could be
wrong, but it seems like the
corporate media has an agenda here.
For me, if I were to answer that
pole, seems like they're
intentionally taking Larry Summers
words and twisting them in order to
fit a pro-corporate anti-social
spending narrative.
And in the case of
The New York Times, to leave out so
much critical context in their
reporting on AOC's actions.
I mean, it just shows you
everything that they really stand
for, who they really stand for,
what they protect in this country.
It isn't policy to benefit your
lives.
It isn't social spending to
materially improve your lives.
What they seem to want to protect
is corporate interests and
the US Chamber of Commerce.
And if AOC and other progressives
refused to play ball in
providing government contracts and
handouts to corporations because
corporations love that kind
of welfare.
Well, they're being baddies.
They're being very naughty,
according to The New York Times.
Absolutely pathetic.