Bailout Blues 3.0
Transcript of Bailout Blues 3.0
-
8/14/2019 Bailout Blues 3.0
1/55
SINGING THE BAILOUT BLUES: A Comparative Analysis of Coverage of the
Emergency Economic Stimulus Act of 2008
I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble
for the safety of my country corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption
in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong
its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a
few hands and the Republic is destroyed.
--Abraham Lincoln
(Shaw 1950:40)
The Bubble Bursts!
The current financial crisis resonates in nearly every aspect of American life today. The
effect of such a tremendous social problem is one that social sciences cannot fail to
investigate at a multiplicity of empirical sites. This study investigates a particular set of
sites that attempt to articulate the nature and ramifications of one important aspect of the
crisis-- The Emergency Economic Stimulus Act of 2008, henceforth referred to as the
EESA, and commonly known as the Bailout Bill.
The EESA was forged in response to a sharp economic downturn that was earmarked by
the imminent collapse of several financial giants including AIG and Citigroup. The
central element in the current financial crisis, according to Dean Baker (2008:73) of the
Center for Economic Policy and Research, is the housing bubble. He continues, The
housing bubble in the United States grew up alongside the stock bubble in the mid-90s.
(Baker 2008:73) The consequent was a period between 1995 and 2002 in which housing
values, (which had remained steady from the 50s to the 90s) increased rapidly. According
to Baker (2008:74), The fact that rents had risen by less than 10 percent in real terms
should have provided more evidence to support the view that the country was
experiencing a housing bubble. If there were fundamental factors driving the run-up in
house sales prices they should be having a comparative effect on rents. However, the
increase in rents was far more modest and was trailing off already by 2002. Home
construction and consumption ran amok as interest rates continued to fall, up until late
2006, when the prices peaked out. The following two years saw the market decline at a
1
-
8/14/2019 Bailout Blues 3.0
2/55
breathtaking pace. Baker (2008:75) cites the total losses at around 7 trillion-- from the
peak of the bubble to the trough-- nearly 50 percent of the GDP.
In addition to the expansion of the bubble, matters were made worse by the proliferationof adjustable rate mortgages. The initial rates on such mortgages were extremely
attractive to homebuyers that might have otherwise opted for more conventional fixed rate
loans. During this time period banks bought and bundled loans into mortgage bank
securities (MBS), as well as collaterized debt obligations (CDOs). (Baker 2008:77) In
turn, companies like Citigroup took these and bundled them into structured investment
vehicles (SIVs). (Baker 2008:78)
What primarily contributed to the catastrophe was the overprovision of subprime loans on
the part of profit-driven financiers. According to William R. Emmons (2008) of the
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, In 2001, fewer than ten percent of outstanding
mortgages were subprime. In a matter of two years, the subprime market had expanded
dramatically. Baker (2008:76) suggests, It is absurd to think that the number of credit-
worthy people in the subprime category had more than doubled from 2002 to 2004, even
as the labor market remained weak and wages lagged behind inflation.
However, rather than acknowledge the writing on the wall, political leaders and experts
on housing celebrated the record rates of homeownership. (Baker 2008:77) The catch
was that when home values plummeted (or more accurately when the bubble popped and
the value of homes reached equilibrium), the value of MBSs, CDOs, and SIVs
plummeted also. Companies that for a decade had been claiming untold profits on risky
bets suddenly went bust. On Wall Street, as is the case at any casino, the house eventually
won. Goldman Sachs, Citibank, and countless others suddenly found themselves
suffocated by bad debts. As a result, they were unwilling, or unable, to extend credit as
they had, and credit markets began to freeze upthe absence of liquidity.
In outlining the processes within corporate structures that contributed to the financial
meltdown, Baker posits:
Underlying the logic of this whole set of developments was an incentive structure that
placed an enormous premium on short-term profits, often at the expense of longer-term
profits or even-longer term corporate survival. (Baker 2008:78)
2
-
8/14/2019 Bailout Blues 3.0
3/55
-
8/14/2019 Bailout Blues 3.0
4/55
coverage, I chose two media outlets with very different organizational orientationsthe
New York Times (NYT), a hallmark among news organizations and Z Communications
(ZNet), a left leaning press collective that produces a magazine, and maintains an online
news repository. I carefully scrutinized texts from these organizations, keeping in mindthat similarities may be as consequential as differences.
David Altheide (1996:68) suggests:
The capacity to define the situation for self and others is a key dimension of social
power. One reason to study mass media documents is to understand the nature and
process by which a key defining aspect of our effective environment operates and to
attempt to gauge the consequences.
Studying the larger social problem that legislation such as the EESA attempts to
remediate by understanding the way in which media utilized their specific variant of
social power to define it is of great importanceparticularly as the term bailoutbecomes
more salient in the American lexicon. Implicit in this study is questions such as how
organizational contexts as well as journalistic practices intercede to structure media
content. If the health of a democracy is partly dependent upon the medias ability to
rationally critique political and economic institutions, then critical media studies are
useful in assessing the extent to which that is taking place. I hope that this study will
contribute to a better understanding of what socio-political conditions need to exist in
order for the media to be useful in facilitating a more vigorous and diffused public debate
regarding the key issues of our times. Specifically, the concept of rational-critical debate
permeates different aspects of this project. Media studies study the sphere that is, in its
most democratically desirable form, designated as that which would interrogate other
spheres of public life. Political economy arguments, such as those leveled by Herman and
Chomsky (2002), Habermas (1991), and McChesney (2004), claim that medias ability to
do so is greatly diminished as it is subjugated to markets. Newspapers are no exception,
as Habermas (1991:185) suggests:
The newspaper, as it developed into a capitalist undertaking, became enmeshed in a webof interests extraneous to business that sought to exercise influence upon it. The history
of big daily newspapers in the second half of the nineteenth century proves that the press
itself became manipulable to the extent that it became commercialized.
4
-
8/14/2019 Bailout Blues 3.0
5/55
With this in mind, perhaps it is at this key juncture, when the solvency and supremacy of
markets come into question, that empirically testing medias potency in offering critical
analysis is most ideal. To do so requires a well-developed understanding of the history
the American media system, as well as thorough review of literature that articulatesrelevant media theories. This comparative analysis drinks deeply of such theories, and
seeks to understand how they may work to explain variances in coverage of an important
and far-reaching social problem.
5
-
8/14/2019 Bailout Blues 3.0
6/55
LITERATURE REVIEW
The American Media Tradition
A rich analysis of news media artifacts must necessarily explore the cultural and historical
contexts in which modern media has evolved, as these contexts work to shape journalistic
traditions that influence modern practice. If, as Paul Starr (2004:19) suggests, the
political origins of modern communications ought to command our attention, then any
fruitful comparative media project should take into consideration such aspects.
Starr (2004:49) notes that, by the mid-eighteenth century, the growth of printing, postalservice, and particularly newspapers created the basis for the public sphere that was to
emerge in fully politicized form during the struggle with Britain. In the American case,
there was a well-networked partisan press that emerged in the form of newspapers. Given
an understanding of how newspapers were able to express and shape opinion during the
Revolutionary Era, it is unsurprising the extent to which they became an essential
commodity of American life throughout the following century. The 1800s saw
innovations in technology that dramatically changed the role media in American life--
Starr (2004:146) describes the political and economic landscape, and its effect on the
press, in this way:
The transformation of newspapers into large-scale enterprises shifted power and
influence in the press. The growth of commercial advertising gradually reduced and then
virtually eliminated the role of political patronage in the economics of daily newspapers.
The shift to advertising did not simply liberate the press to serve the public; it created
new commercial incentives and pressures.
In response to such shifts in technology, as well as an ever-evolving economic landscape,
American news media forged a distinct journalistic tradition whose thumbprint is readily
apparent in todays news media. Hallin and Mancini (2004:62) suggest that the historical
roots of a particular media system follow along a path determined by major social
transformations: the Protestant Reformation, the industrial revolution, the democratic
revolution, and the formation of the nation-state. They continue, The particular
patterns through which these transformations and the associated conflicts were played out
6
-
8/14/2019 Bailout Blues 3.0
7/55
are thus crucial to understanding the relationships between media and political systems.
(Hallin and Mancini 2004:62)
The American system that Hallin and Mancini (2004:67) label the North Atlantic(Liberal) model has, as a result of such path dependent historical transformations,
particular features that are worth noting in this analysis of news content. Some the key
features are (1) early development of mass circulation commercial press (2) neutral
commercial press with information oriented journalism (3) strong professionalization (4)
and a market dominated business model. The North Atlantic model stands in contrast to
the Mediterranean (Polarized Pluralist) and North European (Democratic Corporatist)
models, and Hallin and Mancini (2004:69) suggest they hope these ideal types prove
useful as conceptual devices for organizing a discussion of media and political systems in
a comparative perspective, even if they are far from capturing the full complexity either
of the media systems of particular countries, or of the patterns of relationships among the
major variables we have identified.
I suggest that comparative analysis within these systems benefits from keeping such ideal
types in mind, as news organizations, through the structuring of guidelines and practices,
may reproduce or resistaspects of the system. Moreover, the development of such media
systems fundamentally affects the relationship between producers and consumers of
news. Starr (2004:146) elaborates upon the way in which this relationship is altered by
suggesting, Instead of viewing their readers as citizens and their function as engaging
their readers in politics, newspaper publishers tended to see their readers as consumers
and the provision of news as a means of supports for the advertising that was the
foundation of the business. The ramifications of this shift in perception of the audience
by the producers of news content should be questioned. How does the commercial nature
of news organizations intercede to structure content? Chomsky and Hermann (2002:23)
suggest that commercialization selects for particular kinds of analysis and that, in this
way, bias may be structured, and the supply of experts may be skewed in the direction
desired by the government and the market. Habermas (1991) suggests that it prompts
news organizations to select for content that they are certain will not conflict with the
interests of the private sector. The affect of this he claims is that, critical debatedisappears behind the veil of internal decisions concerning the selection and presentation
of the material. (Habermas 1991:169) The danger in the disappearance of critical
inquiry into aspects of social life, a function that news media should serve, is all too
obvious. If not generating critical debate over the pertinent issues of the times, the media
7
-
8/14/2019 Bailout Blues 3.0
8/55
is reduced to, at best a passive spectator, and at worst, a complicit co-conspirator that
reproduces hegemonic ideology through its particular representations of social life. That
critical debate may be endangered is what prompts researchers to examine organizational
features and confront issues of political economy and their effects on news media content.
What role does the individual journalist working the beat play in all of this? On one
hand, as Eric Alterman (2003:21) rightly points out elite journalists working in places like
New York and Washington make a very comfortable living, when he suggests,
Journalists views on economic matters are generally consistent with their privileged
position on the socio-economic ladder.(2003:21) On the other hand, journalists are not
solely motivated by their own economic interests. Nor are they mere organizational
products generating content as is dictated by editors, who in turn take orders from the
commercial realm-- rather journalists, to the extent possible, imbue their stories with their
own vacillating motives and values, producing at times content that discursively
reconstitutes hegemonic ideology, and at other times agentically resist hegemony. As Epp
Lauk (2009:71) points out, the ideals and values of the liberal model, though
theoretically widely appreciated, do not fully function in journalism practice even in
Western countries.
Thus theoretical frameworks that only account for issues of political economy-- or only
compile ethnographic accounts of daily happenings within news organizations-- are
insufficient. A theoretical account that connects the macro- to the micro-level is
necessary as a means of bridging gaps between other theoretical constructs.
Field Theory
Field theory springs from Bourdieus desire to [understand] the media as an institution
within a wider social formation. (Hallin, in Benson and Neveu 2005:224) It theorizes
that these larger formations are made up groups of institutions, organizations, and
ultimately, individuals that constitute fields, but also are subject to the forces within them.
Field theory, positions itself precisely between those approaches (political economy or
cultural) that commit the short circuit fallacy and link news production directly to theinterests of broad social classes or the national society, and those (organizational) that
focus too narrowly on particular news producers. (Benson and Neveu 2005:12) They
suggest, the concept [of the field] helps avoid the excesses of either the internalist or
externalist readings of texts, and the meaning of autonomy. (Benson and Neveu
8
-
8/14/2019 Bailout Blues 3.0
9/55
2005:13)
This project seeks to avoid such pitfalls by using field theory as a means of mediating the
gaps in other approaches, even as it incorporates aspects of them into its methods andanalysis. By conceptualizing the organizations (and the products they create) I examine
as objects embedded in the journalistic field (and potentially, embedded in varying
degrees in other fields such as the economic), I can treat the texts as part of an ongoing
discursive project of the organizations that is at once subjected to the power of the fields,
and also exerting power to shape those fields. As Bourdieu (1996:40) claims, a field is a
structure of social space, a field of forces, a force field. Within this field of forces,
constant, permanent relationships of inequality operate inside this space, which at the
same time becomes a space for the transformation or preservation of the field. (Bourdieu
1996:40) This study will be an organizational analysis as well as textual analysis, with
field theory bridging the gaps.
Variations between fields are partly accounted for through the concept of habitus, which
suggests that individuals predispositions, assumptions, judgments, and behaviors are the
result of a long-term process of socialization, most importantly in the family, and
secondly, via primary, secondary, and professional education. (Benson and Neveu 2005:
3) Though this study does not, by design, delve deeply into the ways in which habitus
structures the daily practices in each organization studied (this would require a more
intensive ethnographic observation), it does speculate on how organizational goals and
embeddedness in other fields may work to reshape journalistic habitus given that,
habitus is not unchangeable. In fact, it is constantly being modified. (Benson and
Neveu 2005:3) Keeping that in mind, an examination of organizational guidelines as well
as organizational products gives us the ability to speculate on how habitus in the field of
journalism may be transformed or at least influenced by other factors. As Benson
(2006:195) points out, Habitus intersecting with fields offers a probabilistic, not a
totalizing explanation.
The Ongoing Production of Difference
Though dominant forces within a field might determine the probability of actors
producing content in a particular way, that habitus is malleable, and that as such actors
may make choices that defy convention, is worth noting. Perhaps the most exciting
possibly offered by field theory is that it provides a means of explaining how structural
9
-
8/14/2019 Bailout Blues 3.0
10/55
change can occur in ways not previously conceived. In regards to the journalistic field,
Benson and Neveu (2005:5) explain that prospect here:
Bourdieu posits that influxes of new agents into the field can serve either as forces fortransformation or conservation. At the managerial or elite professional level, new agents
can establish themselves by marking their difference with those already in the field, and
thus have the greatest incentive to found a new kind of press outlet or adopt a distinctive
editorial voice.
It follows then, that studies within a particular journalistic field focus on the tension, or
opposing forces, exerted by more and less established agents in that field. Adrienne
Russell (2007:286) suggests that, to understand journalism one must examine how it is
practiced and which power relationships are at play. She asserts that, it is worth
systematically describing emerging forms of news media and participation that shed light
on challenges to contemporary understandings and practices of journalism. (Russell
2007:287)
Benson (2006:189) poses the following question:
Within any given national journalistic field, how do we account for ongoing consistent
differencesto the extent that there really are such differencesamong specific news
organizations of types of news media?
He suggests that, Bourdieus understanding of field emphasizes the ongoing production
of difference. (Benson 2006:189) Thus, studying two different news organizations
within a given field is a search for an explanation for internal heterogeneity by
examining the ongoing production of difference. (Benson 2006:189)
What determines an organizations relative position within the field are its economic
capital, which is the money or assets that it possesses, and cultural capital, which,
encompasses such things as educational credentials, technical expertise, general
knowledge, verbal abilities, and artistic sensibilities. (Benson 2006:189) Benson andNeveu (2005:4) posit that it is along these axes that the ongoing production of difference
occurs when they suggest that the internal structure of a field is an arena of struggle in
which individuals and organizations compete, consciously and unconsciously, to valorize
those forms of capital which they possess. Benson (2006:190) suggests, Those news
10
-
8/14/2019 Bailout Blues 3.0
11/55
organizations that are able to accumulate both forms of capital, such as the New York
Times and the Wall Street Journal, are precisely those which wield a symbolic power over
the entire field and play a crucial role in establishing or modifying the dominant rules of
journalistic practice.
There is evidence to suggest as Benson (2006:190) claims that, economic capital, on the
whole, is more powerful. Julien Duval (in Benson and Neveu 2005:135) points out that
after the privatization and conglomeration of a significant sector of French media in the
past two decades, it has often been suggested that the media unanimously repeated an
ideology, sometimes called la pense unique or market journalism, that suited the
interests of financial markets and business circles. Duval is worth citing at length in this
instance, as he (in Benson and Neveu 2005:135-136) posits that:
While in relatively autonomous fields, economic capital and capital specific to the field
tend to be concentrated in distinct agents or firms, the most influential media outlets in
this subdomain were tightly integrated into the economic order. For this reason, and
according to the mediations specified in this article, their economic pages tended to
represent the economic world in a way that contributed much more to its conservation and
legitimation than to its critique and transformation.
What this means is that content, as Hermann and Chomsky (2002) suggest, is filtered
using field theorys terminology--by the forces produced by the economic field. The
result is that commercial medias interests are amalgamated with corporate interests.
McChesney (2004:93) summarizes this when he suggests, The corporate news media
have a vested interest in the corporate system. He continues, The largest media firms
are members in good standing in the corporate community and are closely linked to it
through business relations, shared investors, interlocking directors, and common political
values. (McChesney 2004:93) Benson (2006:193) sees this as a specific instance of a
broad transformation of capitalism toward a more intensely profit-driven, anti-union,
anti-public sector model, which further isolates the journalistic field from everyday
concerns of working-class and poor citizens.
A comparative analysis such as this, which selects for news organizations that occupy
different spaces within the journalistic field, empirically tests for the potency of the force
exerted by the economic field upon journalistic production. In doing so, it potentially
challenges the hegemony of commercial news producing organizations whose presence
11
-
8/14/2019 Bailout Blues 3.0
12/55
looms large and asks whether lesser agents working in the field, by structuring aspects of
their organizations in fundamentally different ways, may produce content which markedly
differs in its ability to critique social problems and policies. If so, does this offer a
challenge to the traditional journalistic evocation of the world [that] does not seek tomobilize or politicize? (Bourdieu 1996:8) As Russell (2007:290) suggests, The question
is what user-centered new-media forms of journalism and the proliferating meta-coverage
of new-media user-participants tell us about how the amateur variable variable be
shaping the field. Conducting comparative analysis of coverage by more established
news organizations such as the NYT to that of ZNet may begin to answer such questions,
in that ZNets model is more oriented to participation by non-professionals who are not
paid for their efforts.
This brings us to the research questions that this study hopes to address:
1) Did the NYT and ZNets coverage of the EESA differ? If so, how does field
theory, coupled with aspects of an organizational analysis, work to explain
differences in coverage?
2) Will the NYTs dependence on economic capital, which the literature suggests
overpowers its cultural capital, fundamentally structure its coverage of such a
pressing economic topic?
3) Does ZNets organizational structure, particularly its non-commercial nature, as
well as its orientation towards user-participation, afford its journalists more
freedom to analyze and critique this important news topic by partially mitigating
the force exerted by the economic sphere?
To begin answering such questions, let us first become more familiar with organizations.
12
-
8/14/2019 Bailout Blues 3.0
13/55
ORGANIZATIONAL ANALYSIS
The information presented for both organizations was acquired by a close examination of
their websites. For the NYT, there is a secondary site for their corporate entity located at
www.nytco.com. For ZNet, there is a site for the South End Press Collective, whose
founders established and help to operate ZNet. Looking at the sites allows for one to
better understand their business model, organizational guidelines, codes of ethics,
organizational goals, and so forth. Duval (in Benson 2006:190) outlines several ways in
which conducting an analysis of an organization can assist a researcher in determining
each organizations relative economic and cultural capital. Among these are, for economic
capital, form of ownership, size of audience, and percentage of revenues from advertising,and for cultural capital (which is admittedly more difficult to establish), attachment to a
particular journalistic tradition, direction of media outlet by a journalist or former
journalist, and proportion of journalists employed having graduated from one of the
prestigious journalism graduate schools. Benson (2006:190) claims, while no list of
quantitative indicators can explain the entire output of any given news organization, this
attempt to measure cultural (professional) capital as well as economic factors is a clear
advance on the all-too-common tendency to blame everything on concentration of
ownership or advertising. I suggest that another way to approximate cultural capital is
by profiling the key contributing personalities to the news organization. If for example,well known intellectuals, political figures, or other personalities regularly contribute, it is
likely that this may grant that news organization statues it would not otherwise possess.
With this in mind, I chose to analyze the two organizations by focusing on several
categories which bear in mind economic and cultural capital: 1) Ownership/Business
Model, 2) Circulation/Revenue, 3) Journalistic Goals/Practices, and 4) Key Contributors.
For the NYT, this information was fairly easy to access. For ZNet, it was more difficult
to establish measures of readership, circulation, and revenue streams. Some of those
items were covered in past article that have appeared in Z Magazine and are presented
here.
The New York Times
Ownership/ Business Model: According to the NYTs 2009 report to its shareholders,
13
http://www.nytco.com/http://www.nytco.com/ -
8/14/2019 Bailout Blues 3.0
14/55
since the purchase of The New York Times newspaper by Adolph S. Ochs in 1896,
control of The News York Times and related properties has rested with his family. (NYT
2009) After the death of Iphinge Ochs Sulzberger, control was passed down to her
children in the form of a trust (referred to as the 1997 Trust). According to theshareholders report, The primary objective of the 1997 Trust is to maintain the editorial
independence and the integrity of The New York Times and to continue it as an
independent newspaper, entirely fearless, free of ulterior influence and unselfishly
devoted to the public welfare (the primary objective of the 1997 Trust). (NYT 2009)
The NYT is publicly traded, with stocks being divided into Class A and Class B.
According to the shareholders report (NYT 2009), current as of February 27, 2009, the
following groups/individuals owned roughly 5 percent or more of the outstanding Class A
or B stock, or a combination thereof: The 1997 Trust (4.5%), Daniel H. Cohen (4.6%),
James M. Cohen (4.7%), Lynn G. Dolnick (4.6%), Susan W. Dryfoos (4.8%), Michael
Golden (4.8%), Carolyn D. Greenspon (4.5%), Eric M. Lax (4.5%), Arthur Sulzberger Jr.
(5.2%), Harbinger Capital Partners Group (19.9%), Carlos Slim Helu (16.3%), T. Rowe
Price Associates, Inc. (9.5%), and Emigrant Bank Group (4.7%). Many of the
individuals on this list are managing directors of the NYT, and Arthur Sulzberger Jr.
occupies the positions of Chairman of the Board, Publisher, and Director.
Circulation/Revenue: According to a report published on the NYT website (NYT 2009),
and conducted by ABC Fas-Fax in September 2008, the NYT is ranked #1 in percentage
of individually paid print copies among the national newspapers. The report (NYT
2009) claims that the NYT is the largest 7-day newspaper in the U.S. [and] has extended
its lead with the next biggest 7-day paper, the L.A. Times, by more than 300,000 weekday
copies and over 375,000 Sunday copies.
In spite of the NYTs position among other nationally circulated papers, the industry has
declined in general, and the NYT is experiencing the effects of such hardship. According
to the shareholders report (NYT 2009):
[The NYTs] 2008 total revenues declined 8%. Revenues from advertising, our primarysource of revenue, fell 13%. Circulation revenues, which are derived from newsstand and
home-delivery sales, rose 2%. And while we did a good job of managing coststhey
were down 5%--it was not enough to overcome the total revenue decline. While we had
an operating loss of $41 million compared with operating profit of $227 million in 2007,
14
-
8/14/2019 Bailout Blues 3.0
15/55
if you exclude depreciation and amortization and special items, operating profit for 2008
was $302 million compared with $457 million in 2007.
The report goes on to speculate on the presumed cause of the economic hardships withwhich the paper is confronted:
In past letters to [the shareholders] we have discussed the seismic changes taking place
in the media industry as consumers increasingly get news and information from the Web
and advertisers pay much lower rates online than they do in print. While all of using the
newspaper business are experiencing these changes, we believe that much of the decline
we saw in our business last year stemmed from the downturn in the U.S. economy.
The report continues, that [The NYT] clients value the brand association, the
customizable campaigns we can create and our strong reach. And we believe all this
particularly benefits The Times. Our newspapers and Websites are important tools in
their comprehensive campaign total their stories, restore confidence and respond
effectively to the ongoing global credit crisis.
This shows that the NYT has a clear awareness of how the changing media markets, and
the ongoing financial crisis affects its business. In another section of the website, are the
forward looking statements that the NYT provides prospective investors. The report
(NYT 2009), in a section that discusses potential investment risk factors claims:
Deteriorating economic conditions, including a recession, market disruptions, tightened
credit markets and significantly wider corporate borrowing spreads, may make it more
difficult for us to finance significant transactions or obtain replacement financing for our
existing debt.
Among other risk factors mentioned in the report are: increases in the price of newsprint,
unionization of employees, increasing employee benefit costs, protection of intellectual
property rights, and changing regulatory developments.
Journalistic Goals/Practices: The NYT considers itself a benchmark in journalistic
professionalism and authority. According toEthical Journalism: A Handbook of Values
and Practices for the News and Editorial Departments (NYT 2009), [The NYT]
greatest strength is the authority and reputation of The Times. We must do nothing that
15
-
8/14/2019 Bailout Blues 3.0
16/55
would undermine or dilute it and everything possible to enhance it. This handbook
clearly lays out the methods by which the NYT attempts to maintain its aura of
professionalism and authority. I will quickly outline several of the primary sections in the
handbook citing directly in order to articulate some of the main themes:
Sec. 1-- Introduction and Purpose: The goal of The New York Times is to cover the
news as impartially as possiblewithout fear or favor, in the words of Adolph Ochs,
our patriarchand to treat readers, news sources, advertisers and others fairly and openly,
and to be seen doing so.
Sec. 2-- Our Duty to Our Readers: The Times treats its readers as fairly and openly as
possible. In print and online, we tell our readers the complete, unvarnished truth as best
we can learn it.
Sec. 3-- Pursuing the News: Relationships with sources require the utmost in sound
judgment and self discipline to prevent the fact or appearance of partiality.
Sec. 4-- Protecting the papers Neutrality: Staff members should be especially sensitive
to the appearance of partiality when they address groups that might figure in coverage
they provide, edit, package or supervise, especially if the setting might suggest a close
relationship to the sponsoring group.
Sec. 5Participation in Public Life: No newsroom or editorial employee may do
anything that damages The Times reputation for strict neutrality in reporting on politics
and government. Journalists have no place on the playing field of politics. Staff
members may appear from time to time on radio and television devoted to public affairs,
but they should avoid expressing views that go beyond what they would be allowed to say
in the paper. Op-ed columnists and editorial writers enjoy more leeway than others in
speaking publicly because their business is expressing opinions. The Times nevertheless
expects them to consider carefully the forums in which they appear and to protect the
standards and impartiality of the newspaper as a whole.
When taken in total, the handbook clearly outlines the methods and behaviors expected of
its journalists.
Key Contributors: Among the key NYT contributors to the coverage of the EESA were
16
-
8/14/2019 Bailout Blues 3.0
17/55
the following individuals, whose background and professional training are worth noting:
1. David M. Herszenhorn-- Herszenhorn is a staff writer who contributed frequently
to the coverage of the EESA over the specified period. He contributes articles aswell as posting frequently on several of the NYT website blogs.
2. Paul KrugmanKrugman is a well known contributor who, according to the bio
provided by the website (NYT 2009), joined The New York Times in 1999 as a
columnist on the Op-ed page and continues as professor of Economic and
International Affairs at Princeton University.
3. Andrew Ross SorkinSorkin is described by the NYT website (NYT 2009) as,
The New York Timess chief mergers and acquisitions reporter and a columnist.
Mr. Sorkin, a leading voice about Wall Street and corporate America, is also the
editor of DealBook (nytimes.com/dealbook), an online daily financial report he
started in 2001. In addition, Mr. Sorkin is an assistant editor of business and
finance news, helping guide and shape the papers coverage.
4. Floyd Norris-- Norris, according to the website (NYT 2009), is the chief
financial correspondent of the New York Times and writes a weekly column.
5. Joe NoceraNocera, according to the website (NYT 2009), Joe Nocera writes
the Talking Business column for The New York Times each Saturday. Mr. Nocera
is also a staff writer for The New York Times Magazine. In addition to his work at
The Times, he serves as a regular business commentator for NPR's Weekend
Edition with Scott Simon.
Z Communications
Ownership/Business Model: Z Communications is a creation of the South End Press
Collective, described by its website (South End 2009) thusly: South End Press is an
independent, nonprofit, collectively-run book publisher with more than 250 titles in print.
Since our founding in 1977, we have met the needs of readers who are exploring, or
already committed to, the politics of radical social change. The site continues, To
expand access to information and critical analysis, South End Press has been instrumental
to the start of two on-going political media projectsSpeak Out and Z Magazine.
According to the website (ZNet 2009), Z Communications is the name for the
overarching institution composed of all Z Operations and Projects. Among these are Z
Magazine and ZNet.
17
http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/ -
8/14/2019 Bailout Blues 3.0
18/55
ZNet and Z Magazine both raise revenue for the organization. ZNet allows users to sign
up as either free members or Z Sustainers. Free members are allowed to read all sections
of the site. Z Sustainers gain access to more features by contributing at the anywherebetween $1-$100 monthly. Access increases with monthly contribution level with the
highest-level contributors receiving privileges such as their own ZSpace page, the ability
to upload their own content, and discounts at the ZStore, which sells videos and other
items. Z Magazine sells subscriptions at a rate of $33 for 12 months. It offers a discount
on that rate for low income subscribers at $28 for 12 months. The cost per issue
decreases for subscriptions that go beyond 12 months.
Circulation/Revenue: According to an article from Z Magazine (ZMag 2005) in January
2005 claims, Despite our financial ups and downs, including another funding crisis last
year, weve been able to improve and expand our efforts and projects, thanks to help from
readers and supporters. It continues:
Each month, we prepare Z at our offices in Woods Hole between the first and the 10th of
the month. It is shipped from our printer in Ohio to subscribers and distributors around
the country. Print subscriptions continue in the 8,000 to 10,000 range, with an estimated
pass along readership of 15,000. Another 3,000 (and growing) access Z Magazine in its
online format. Newsstand distribution ranges from between 7,500 and 9,000.
The article also offers a glimpse of the organizational commitment to remain free of
advertiser support:
By avoiding such corporate forms as a rigid hierarchy or a bloated bureaucracy devoted
to raising advertising or big-money donor revenues, we've attempted to maintain our
political ideals in everyday practice while continuing to offer an expanding variety of
media content.
Another article from January 2008 (ZMag 2008), reflects of Z Magazines future and its
current state of affairs:
First, it's important to realize that Z Magazine print has always lost money, partly
because we started it without investors or advertising income and without the start-up
budget of two to three million dollars many said was needed to start a magazine in 1988.
18
-
8/14/2019 Bailout Blues 3.0
19/55
Plus, the cost of finding and keeping subscribers, of paying printers, and salaries and fees
to writers and cartoonists, with income generated solely from subscriptions and
newsstand sales, has required that we raise around $60-$100,000 every two or three years
since 1988.
The article continues by describing the organizations response to the financial problems
described above:
To address the financial losses, we initially created our website's Sustainer Program as a
way for Z supporters to contribute to the entire Z operation. A year ago, we decided that
we needed to upgrade our ZNet website to keep in tune website with people's preferences,
influenced by You-Tube, blogs, myspace, and other Internet developments.
Though it is difficult to determine Z Magazine and ZNets readership, it seems clear that
the organization may be forced to transition to a digital only format. Even without exact
readership and revenue statistics, it is unsurprising that it is minute compared to that of
the NYT.
Journalistic Goals/Practices: The ZNet website describes Z magazine as a radical print
and online periodical dedicated to resisting injustice, eliminating repression, and creating
liberty. ZNet collects Z Magazine articles as well as those from many other news
sources, making a large amount of content available to its readers.
An article from January 2008 (ZMag 2008) by Z Magazine founder Lydia Sargent claims:
Because a new left "totalist" politics had developed during that time [1960s-1970s], our
mission when we started Z Magazine (and South End Press, as well) was to create a
media institution that would not only critique existing society and institutions, but would
relate this new politics to existing movements, to those just becoming radical, and to a
larger public. Otherwise, it would be ignored, revised, or misrepresented by mainstream
media outlets. We also wanted to create a left media institution that was self-sustaining
and that reflected in its collective structure our valuesfor peace and justice and againstwhite supremacist capitalist patriarchy politics. We hoped that this non-hierarchical
structure would serve, eventually, as one possible model for activists in their vision and
strategy for a better society and the institutions that might foster more humane values.
19
-
8/14/2019 Bailout Blues 3.0
20/55
It continues:
In the mid-1990s, at the urging of younger ZMI students, ZNet was created (with one
staff member, later twoplus volunteers). That's 20 years of work, thousands of articlesand graphics, hundreds of free ads for worthy movement organizations, projects, and
media productionsnot to mention many hours of worry about financial survival, the
state of the left and the state of the world.
Sargent reflects on the uses of Internet technology in this article, questioning whether it
will be a tool for oppression or liberation for the Left. She suggests:
To me, the answer for the left is that: if we develop infrastructure, which we don't
currently have: if we continue to create varied forms of mediatext, video, audio, games,
etc.produced by a more diverse set of people, on a global scale, for all ages; if we
prioritize the participatory democratic discussion of strategy and vision for a real
revolution; if we find a way to grow within the so-called Internet "democracy" touted by
pundits, using the web aggressively as our personal left distribution system, the kind
we've never before been able to achieve, then perhaps the Internet will be the greatest
media revolution since Gutenberg's Bible.
It seems clear that ZNet does not set specific guidelines for journalistic practices--rather,
it rejects the clear division between audience and consumer in favor of a more
participatory journalism that happens at a multiplicity of sites utilizing emergent
technologies freely. In this sense, ZNet stands in opposition to the professional practices
that the NYT espouses, and partly depends upon for its authority.
Key Contributors: ZNets participatory model allows contributors to post articles and
commentaries that appear in concert with more established journalists and intellectuals.
However, it is those more notable individuals with considerable credentials and
recognizable names that may ultimately raise the organizations profile. Among the key
contributors are Noam Chomsky, Amy Goodman of Democracy Now, noted historian
Howard Zinn, and most recently Venezuelan President Hug Chavez, who posts a regularblog. Among those who contributed to the articles examined for this study are:
1. Dean Baker-- Baker is the Co-Founder of the Center for Economic Policy and
Research. He formerly worked as an analyst for the Economic Policy Institute in
20
-
8/14/2019 Bailout Blues 3.0
21/55
Washington.
2. Naomi Klein-- Klein is a noted journalist and author of The Shock Doctrine.
According to her ZNet biography, Kleins regular column for The Nation and The
Guardian is distributed internationally by the New York Times Syndicate.3. William Greider-- Greider is a journalist and author, formerly a reporter and editor
from the Washington Post.
4. Paul Street-- Street is, according to his ZSpace page, an independent radical-
democratic policy researcher, journalist, historian, and speaker The site
continues, Streets writings, research findings, and commentary have been
featured and presented in a large number and wide variety of media venues
including The New York Times, CNN, Al Jazeera, the Chicago Tribune, The
Times of India, Morning Star (England), Al-Alkhbar (The News in Beirut,
Lebanon), WGN (Chicago/national), WLS (ABC-Chicago), Fox News, the
Chicago Sun Times, the Capital City Times (Madison, WI), and the Iowa City
Press Citizen.
5. James K. Galbraith-- Galbraith is an economist and son of John Kenneth
Galbraith. He is the former Executive Director of the Joint Economic Committee.
Similarities and Differences
There are clear differences between the organizations business models. The NYT
closely resembles the kind of organization one might expect to find in Hallin and
Mancinis (2004) liberal model. The NYT is a commercial entity whose primary revenue
source is from advertising. Advertisers post in the NYT because of its high circulation,
meaning maintaining that circulation is vital to the NYTs existence, as well as its
viability as a profit-oriented business. In contrast, ZNet strives to keep itself free from
corporate interference by electing not to solicit commercial advertising revenue. ZNet
generates the revenue necessary to maintain production through subscriptions and
contributions, meaning higher circulation is a means of sustaining the organization,
though not necessarily for the sake of profit, but survival.
In terms of journalistic practice, the NYT espouses the notion of journalistic neutralityand non-partisanship. The organization openly claims that its legitimate authority to
make news is based upon such practices and they clearly demarcate the line between
producers and consumers of news. ZNet openly admits its political agenda. As such it
bears at least some of the earmarks of organizations likely to be found in countries
21
-
8/14/2019 Bailout Blues 3.0
22/55
described by Hallin and Mancinis (2004) polarized pluralist model. News organizations
within these countries are likely to be openly partisan in the coverage they offer and
insulated from commercial influence (though in many of these countries this is through
direct government subsidization).
Both organizations feature key contributors who have highly recognizable profiles, which
contributes to the cultural capital possessed by each organization. In the NYTs case,
nearly all of the key contributors will have a background in journalism. For ZNet, many
have either a background in journalism, or technical expertise in a particular academic
area. There is, at times, a cross pollination of contentone of the Op-eds that ran in the
NYT during the period examined ran several days later in ZNet. Sometimes, policy
analysts cited by one organization may be cited, or contribute to the other. This suggests,
that as varied as content may be because of organizational guidelines etc., that both news
organizations often argue issues in the same discursive sphere. The complexity of
coverage and the interconnectedness of information make an understanding of such a
realm challenging.
By conducting an organizational analysis, we can utilize the structure provided by field
theory to establish relative positions within the journalistic field for each organization.
The figure below (Figure 1) represents these positions within the field by locating each
organization based upon their proportion of particular forms of capital, either cultural
(CC) or economic (CE).
22
CE-
CC+
CE+
CC-
CE+
CC+
ZNet
NYT
Large Scale Journalism
Heternomous
Pole
Autonomus
Pole
-
8/14/2019 Bailout Blues 3.0
23/55
-
8/14/2019 Bailout Blues 3.0
24/55
-
8/14/2019 Bailout Blues 3.0
25/55
(Altheide1996:9) From the organizational context we can recognize patterns of meaning.
These meanings and patterns seldom appear all at once, Altheide (1996:10) suggests,
rather, they emerge or become more clear through constant comparison and investigation
of documents over time.
The texts I examine provide insight beyond political or economic commentary-- they
provide a rich description of the discursive environments from which they come. Even
more, they provide empirical evidence as to the effect that the journalistic field (and other
fields as well) has upon the organizations, and how individual actors within the
organizations reinforce or undermine normative structures within the field. My research
design hopes to richly articulate the prevailing message system which is the relatively
coherent worldview one can abstract from the news by identifying how stories are framed
or put into context and the dominant reference points used, (Wittenbols 2001:346)-- of
each organization. My argument is that within the messages systems are frames, which
Altheide (1996:30) suggests are very broad thematic emphases or definitions of a
report. Frames help to shape the discursive borders of arguments. Closely related to
frames are themes that Altheide (1996:31) suggests are recurring typical theses that run
through a lot of reports. He continues, Theoretically, frames and themes are crucial in
defining situations and provide much of the rationale for document analysis. (Altheide
1996:31) I suggest that understanding the prevailing frames and themes utilized by the
two organizations is key to linking their content to their relative position within the
journalistic field. In understanding how the organizations utilized frames and themes in
conjunction with one another to construct intricate arguments about the EESA, I believe it
is possible to empirically assess the prevailing message systems at work.
It is important to note that not all of the texts were produced by the organizations
themselves. Though both organizations produced original texts during this period, they
both also disseminated content produced by other organizations. I suggests, that in
choosing to make this content available to readers, the organizations incorporate that
content into a larger discursive framework, thereby making it a part of their own message
system. Interceding to galvanize and contour these organizations message systems are
the gravitational effects within the journalistic field.
Data Management
The texts selected were articles, op-eds, editorials, and commentaries from the NYT
25
-
8/14/2019 Bailout Blues 3.0
26/55
(articles accessed through the Times website NyTimes.com), and ZNet (articles accessed
at Zmag.org). I limited my search down to an approximately two week period from
September 19, 2008 to October 6, 2008, a time in which both organizations were
producing/disseminating content on the EESA at a high volume. To locate the texts, Iutilized the search function from each website. The NYT website allowed for a keyword
searchI used the two most common referents for the EESA during the period, which
were TARP and Bailout. Both of these terms hit upon a special area of the site
dedicated to the EESA and designated as a Times Topic. From that point I was able to
filter out articles outside of the designated timeframe.
ZNet provided a search engine with similar features. It allows for keyword searches, and
offers that user the opportunity to filter in or out articles, blogs, and multimedia on the
specific topic. I elected not to utilize blogs as they were not hit upon in the NYTs
search engine, nor are they necessarily available in a print format. The choice to
systematically sample for texts that are available to print readership was a strategic one, as
it is unclear whether the NYTs print readership would access the website to seek out
blogs. Therefore, incorporating those may mean analyzing texts that a large percentage of
the NYTs readership may not read. I also filtered out, from both the NYT and ZNet,
articles that were hit upon by the search engines, but only tangentially referenced the
EESA, rather than making it a substantial focus of the article. It became clear as I was
sorting through the data, that the NYT disseminated columns, Op-Eds, and editorials.
These varied greatly from one another in tone, but I decided to analyze each of them, as
doing so is consistent with deconstructive textual analysis emphasis on exploring
ideological limits. For ZNet differences between articles were not as pronounced, so I
settled on picking ZNet articles and commentaries, as these were available free to readers
at the website and presented in concert with one another. Moreover, its seemed by
looking at issues of the printed Z Magazine that ZNet articles and commentaries were
among the content available to be printed.
After collecting the articles, I engaged in what Altheide (1996:53) refers to as the double
loop of analysis. I first thumbed through articles from each source to get a sense of the
different frames and themes that made up the organizations message systems. I thenbegan taking detailed notes that summarized each article, and found that five common
frames emerged that explored the topic of the EESA in different ways. They are:
1. What Happened? (Analysis of Causes of the Crisis)-- Arguments that account
26
-
8/14/2019 Bailout Blues 3.0
27/55
for the underlying causes of the problem including key regulation and de-
regulation that fomented the financial crisis.
2. Off With Their Heads! (Who is Responsible for the Problem)-- Arguments
which assign responsibility (for the financial crisis or lack of action to resolve thecrisis) to key leaders in the political and economic sector.
3. The Blank Check (How to Fix It)-- Arguments that analyze the need for/efficacy
of the proposed Bailout in addressing the crisis and/or other proposed solutions.
4. Wall Street/ Main Street (Who Does or Does not Benefit)-- Arguments which
specifically refer to who benefits from the Bailout.
5. What Comes Next(Looking to the Future)Arguments that speculate as to
how the Bailout and Financial Crisis will affect the nations future.
If the first loop of Altheides method is intuitive, than the next is analytic. Afterdeliberating upon the frames that make up each organizations message system, I read
back through the articles and refined my notes to include specific examples of how the
frames were articulated, and began making observations about similarities and
differences. These frames were not always easily visible and they often appeared in
concert with one another. At times, broad themes articulated arguments within frames.
As I conducted my analysis, I realized that the way in which frames were presented in
proximity to one another, and in concert with key themes often exposed important
components of the organizational message systems. I believe, when understood as a
totality, they represent a message system unique to each organization.
I will present my findings for each organization referring back to these frames and citing
from the texts where appropriate, and then move on to a more general discussion which
reflects upon how an understanding of the prevailing message system of each
organization can help to answer the previously stated research questions.
27
-
8/14/2019 Bailout Blues 3.0
28/55
ANALYSIS
ZNet: The Social Justice/Systemic Responsibility Message System
ZNets coverage tended to present arguments that discussed the underlying causes of the
financial crisis (Frame 1) often and with great detail. Many of the articles referred to
specific key pieces of legislationmost notably, the Glass-Steagall Act. Steve Frasers
article (Wall Street and Washington 2008) provides a good example of the way in which
ZNets coverage emphasized the necessity of understanding historical events to critique
the present. Fraser traces the relationship between big business on Wall Street and
legislators in Washington, and suggests that bailouts are not unprecedented, and there wasa post Depression-era period in which regulatory mechanisms worked as intended. He
suggests, The Glass-Steagall Banking Act, the two laws of 1933 and 1934 regulating the
stock exchange, the creation of the Securities and Exchange Commission, and other
similar measures subjected the financial sector to fairly rigorous public supervision. He
continues by recapping an era of gradual deregulation, culminating with Glass-Stegalls
repeal in 1999. He introduces terms in this article that are key to understanding ZNets
use of Frame 1the socialization of risk and the privatization of reward. Amy
Goodmans article (Wall Street Socialists 2008) emphasizes this ongoing problem
thusly, As these high-rolling gamblers are losing all their banks' money, it comes to the
taxpayer to bail them out.
In ZNet, Frame 1 arguments were often presented in conjunction with arguments that
assign responsibility to key members of the political and economic sector (Frame 2).
Goodmans article suggests:
The meltdown is a bipartisan affair. Presidential contenders John McCain and Barack
Obama each have received millions of dollars from these very companies that are
collapsing and are receiving the corporate welfare. President Clinton and his treasury
secretary, Robert Rubin (now an Obama economic adviser), presided over the repeal in
1999 of the Glass-Steagall Act, passed after the 1929 start of the Great Depression to curb
speculation that caused that calamity. The repeal was pushed through by former
Republican Sen. Phil Gramm, one of McCain's former top advisers. Politicians are too
dependent on Wall Street to do anything.
28
-
8/14/2019 Bailout Blues 3.0
29/55
We see here that Goodman assigns responsibility, but does so in the context of a broader
systemic inadequacy that is grounded in a historical chain of events that precipitated a
context in which the current crisis became possible. This positions political figures as atonce powerful actors and products of a culture of irresponsibility. Dean Bakers article
(The Financial Meltdown Continues 2008) from September 20th utilizes Frame 2 to
point out the way in which certain individuals could have played an instrumental role in
averting the current crisishere, he specifically criticizes former Federal Reserve
chairman Alan Greenspan:
While there is no simple path out of this crisis, it was a crisis that could have been easily
avoided. If the Federal Reserve Board had acted to stem the growth of the housing bubble
before it grew to such dangerous proportions, the country would not currently be facing a
recession and the prospect of a financial collapse. Alan Greenspan had the tools
necessary to rein in the bubble had he been so inclined. First, he could have imposed
tighter restrictions on mortgages, as the Fed has recently done. This would have prevented
many of the worst mortgages that led to the subprime crisis and helped inflate housing
prices.
Bakers criticism of Greenspan typifies much of ZNets coverage. It pair Frames 1 and 2
so that it does directly critique specific actors, but with an eye towards the historical roots
of the current crisis. ZNets analysis of the efficacy of the proposed Bailout (Frame 3)
often relied upon Frame 1 as well. Robert Weissmans article (The Financial Re-
Regulatory Agenda 2008) suggests, The current crisis is the culmination of a quarter
century's deregulation. Even as the Fed and Treasury scramble to contain the damage,
there must be a simultaneous effort to reconstruct a regulatory system to prevent future
disasters. Weissman goes on to outline several re-regulatory actions that the current
administration should take, including his suggestion to:
Revive competition policy. The repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, separating traditional
banks from investment banks, was the culmination of a progressive [sic] deregulation of
the banking sector. In the current environment, banks are gobbling up the investmentbanks. But this arrangement is paving the way for future problems.
Another common frame pairing in ZNets coverage was analysis of who benefits from the
proposed Bailout (Frame 4) with Frame 3-- ZNets coverage often articulated Frame 3 in
29
-
8/14/2019 Bailout Blues 3.0
30/55
the context of Frame 4. As one might expect, ZNets organizational commitment to
social justice led articles to often analyze the efficacy of the Bailout by whether it
benefits only those Wall Street investors who receive funding, or Main Street Americans.
An article by Senator Bernie Sanders (Billions for Bailouts! Who Pays? 2008) suggests:
The people who can best afford to pay and the people who have benefited most from
Bush's economic policies are the people who should provide the funds for the bailout. It
would be immoral to ask the middle class, the people whose standard of living has
declined under Bush, to pay for this bailout while the rich, once again, avoid their
responsibilities. Further, if the government is going to save companies from bankruptcy,
the taxpayers of this country should be rewarded for assuming the risk by sharing in the
gains that result from this government bailout.
This excerpt resonates with a common theme in ZNets coverage, which is, to the extent
possible, proposed legislation should be punitive. Dean Bakers article (No Blank
Check for Wall Street 2008) from Sept 24th suggests:
We cannot afford to give Paulson a blank check. Congress must first insist on some
serious accountability in the bailout process. That means a board that involves
congressional appointees and a high level of transparency, rather than just allowing
Paulson to spend the money as he pleases. Congress should also insist that the Wall
Street crew pays for its own incompetence. An absolute cap of $2m in annual
compensation for any executive of any firm taking part in the bailout seems fair. The
taxpayers should also be compensated for their support. The government should acquire
an ownership stake in the companies that it bails out. For example, for every $10bn in bad
debts it buys, the government should get $2bn in stock. That way, the taxpayers stand to
get back some of their money. There are more conditions that should be imposed as part
of the bailout, but the key point is that Congress has time to structure the bailout to serve
the country's interest. It should not allow itself it to be bullied into giving the Bush
administration a huge blank check. This is exactly what it did when it authorized the war
in Iraq, and we all know how that one turned out.
The blank check was a theme within Frame 3 that appeared often in both organizations
coverage. In ZNets coverage, it often came in conjunction with Frame 4, and with
arguments that speculate about how the Bailout would affect the nations future (Frame
5). Often, the need for punitive action in structuring the Bailout was presented as an
30
http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=tJtedvGDsFH9ZpcxoRmOmkt%2F9o6iiHYVhttp://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=tJtedvGDsFH9ZpcxoRmOmkt%2F9o6iiHYVhttp://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=tJtedvGDsFH9ZpcxoRmOmkt%2F9o6iiHYVhttp://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=tJtedvGDsFH9ZpcxoRmOmkt%2F9o6iiHYV -
8/14/2019 Bailout Blues 3.0
31/55
argument that would ensure that, whatever investment was made, average Americans
would be protected moving forward.
The way in which ZNet presented the different frames of arguments, as well as how itpaired frames to construct criticisms and solutions in particular ways, leads me to suggest
that one could call ZNets message system the Social Justice/Systemic Responsibility
system. This system portrayed the current crisis as the consequent of a series of historical
shifts towards de-regulation, which specific individuals within the system allowed or even
encouraged, at the expense of the American middle- and lower-classes. ZNets emphasis
throughout the coverage was consistent in suggesting that the only solution acceptable
was one that reshaped broad systemic shortcomings that produce and reproduce structures
of inequality.
NYT: The Economic Stability/Personal Accountability Message System
The NYTs coverage tended to focus predominantly on Frame 3, with Frames 2 and 4
often utilized in conjunction. A stark difference in the NYTs coverage, particularly in
columns, is that it did not utilize Frame 1 often, or with great detail. Many columns were
richly descriptive of events occurring within the Bush administration or Congress at the
time. An article by David M. Herezenhorn (Administration is Seeking $700 Billion for
Wall Street 2008) provides such an example:
The Bush administration on Saturday formally proposed a vast bailout of financial
institutions in the United States, requesting unfettered authority for the Treasury
Department to buy up to $700 billion in distressed mortgage-related assets from the
private firms. The proposal, not quite three pages long, was stunning for its stark
simplicity. It would raise the national debt ceiling to $11.3 trillion. And it would place no
restrictions on the administration other than requiring semiannual reports to Congress,
granting the Treasury secretary unprecedented power to buy and resell mortgage debt.
The article goes on to describe how Democrats and Republicans differ on specifics of the
proposed legislation, suggesting that such differences, set the stage for a four-day brawlin Congress.
Op-Ed pieces, particularly those presented from September 21st through September 26th,
tended to be more critical of the proposed legislation, utilizing frame pairings in a way
31
-
8/14/2019 Bailout Blues 3.0
32/55
similar to ZNets coverage. One example is William Kristols Op-Ed from September 21st
(A Fine Mess 2008), one of the few NYTs pieces to utilize Frame 1, that also utilizes
Frames 2 and 3. Kristol suggests:
A huge speculative housing bubble has collapsed. Were going to have a recession.
Unemployment will go up. Credit is going to be tighter. The challenge is to contain the
damage to a normal recession and to prevent a devastating series of bank runs, a
collapse of the credit markets and a full-bore depression. Everyone seems to agree on the
need for a big and comprehensive plan, and that the markets have to have some
confidence that help is on the way. Funds need to be supplied, trading markets need to be
stabilized, solvent institutions needs to be protected, and insolvent institutions need to be
put on the path to a deliberate liquidation or reorganization.
He continues:
But is the administrations proposal the right way to do this? It would enable the
Treasury, without Congressionally approved guidelines as to pricing or procedure, to
purchase hundreds of billions of dollars of financial assets, and hire private firms to
manage and sell them, presumably at their discretion. There are no provisions for or
even promises of disclosure, accountability or transparency. Surely Congress can at
least ask some hard questions about such an open-ended commitment. And Ive been
shocked by the number of (mostly conservative) experts Ive spoken with who arent at all
confident that the Bush administration has even the basics right or who think that the
plan, though it looks simple on paper, will prove to be a nightmare in practice.
Kristol expresses doubts about the efficacy of the plan, in two ways. First by reviewing
the root of the problem (albeit in much less detail than ZNet articles typically provided),
and second, by questioning whether the proposed plan can be effective when it is the
Bush administrations proposition.
Another example that is particularly useful is Paul Krugmans Op-Ed (Cash for Trash
2008) which appeared in the NYT on September 22nd, and was run in ZNet on September25th. Krugman sums up conditions that led to the crisis, and then questions whether the
proposed plan is one that will help or harm everyday Americans. Krugman suggests:
Everyone agrees that something major must be done. But Mr. Paulson is demanding
32
-
8/14/2019 Bailout Blues 3.0
33/55
extraordinary power for himself and for his successor to deploy taxpayers money
on behalf of a plan that, as far as I can see, doesnt make sense.
He continues:
The Paulson plan calls for the federal government to buy up $700 billion worth of
troubled assets, mainly mortgage-backed securities. How does this resolve the crisis?
Well, it might might break the vicious circle of deleveraging, step 4 in my capsule
description. Even that isnt clear: the prices of many assets, not just those the Treasury
proposes to buy, are under pressure. And even if the vicious circle is limited, the financial
system will still be crippled by inadequate capital. Or rather, it will be crippled by
inadequate capital unless the federal government hugely overpays for the assets it buys,
giving financial firms and their stockholders and executives a giant windfall at
taxpayer expense. Did I mention that Im not happy with this plan?
Another piece that was critical of the proposed plan was Andrew Ross Sorkins article
(A Bailout Above the Law 2008) which suggests, It is the financial equivalent of the
Patriot Act. Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr.s $700 billion proposal to bail out
Wall Street is both the biggest rescue and the most amazing power grab in the history of
the American economy.
Krugmans, Kristols, and Sorkins pieces seem to, by utilizing aspects of Frames 1, 2,
and 3 in concert, fit fairly well within the Social Justice/Systemic Responsibility
message system. However, the NYTs coverage was by no means consistent throughout
the timeframe examined. As events unfolded, the NYT shifted its use of these frames,
and the nature of the arguments presented within them, dramatically.
Early coverage in the NYT tended to provide descriptions of events through the columns,
and criticism of aspects of the proposed plan through the Op-Eds or editorials, however
there was in much of the content, the presumption that the legislation would pass. An
example of such presumption, which comes within Frame 3, is in David M. Herzenhorns
article (Bailout Talks Advance, but Doubts Voiced in Congress 2008) from September23rd. He suggests:
While Congressional leaders in both chambers said they were confident that they could
reach a quick deal, it was also clear that Mr. Paulson and Mr. Bernanke would face rough
33
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/u/usa_patriot_act/index.html?inline=nyt-classifierhttp://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/u/usa_patriot_act/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier -
8/14/2019 Bailout Blues 3.0
34/55
questioning and that initial support for the bailout had begun to fray. Some Democrats
said they simply did not trust the president, and drew a parallel to Mr. Bushs request for
authority to wage war in Iraq.
The article continues by describing points of contention between the two parties, but
suggests that an agreement would be reached shortly:
Because the markets are eager for a final deal and because Congress is trying to adjourn
for the fall elections, lawmakers are bypassing the normal committee process and working
toward an agreement in hopes of votes in both chambers within days. And some
lawmakers said it could be done. We are convinced that inaction could be a disaster,
said Senator Robert Bennett, Republican of Utah. We dont believe that inaction is an
option, so therefore we are going to do whatever we can to make sure that the action that
is taken is as responsible and well thought-out as possible.
Even though the NYTs coverage seemed to presume the Bailout was inevitable, it did
often voice skepticism about particular aspects of the plan, such as the broad powers it
would give Paulson, and the lack of adequately capping executive pay structures.
However, when the initial vote failed in the House of Representatives on September 30th,
the NYTs coverage shifted. Whereas at first, Frame 3 arguments within the NYT were
critical of the plans shortcomings, after the initial vote failed, Frame 3 arguments tended
more often to suggest that whatever shortcomings the plan might have, they needed to be
ignored as failing to pass the plan quickly would do more damage to the economy in the
long run.
Here is an example two Frame 3 arguments, one before the initial vote failed, one after.
The first is an Op-Ed from Bob Herbert (A Second Opinion 2008) on September 23 rd in
which he states:
Mr. Paulson spoke on the Sunday morning talk shows about bad lending practices and
irresponsible borrowing and irresponsible lending and illiquid assets. The sky was
falling, he seemed to be saying, and if the taxpayers didnt pony up $700 billion in thenext few days, all would be lost. No time to look at the fine print. Hurry, hurry, said the
treasury secretary. His eyes, as he hopped from one network camera to another, said, as
salesmen have been saying since the dawn of time: Trust me. With all due respect to
Mr. Paulson, who is widely regarded as a smart and fine man, we need to slow this
34
-
8/14/2019 Bailout Blues 3.0
35/55
process down. We got into this mess by handing out mortgages like lollipops to people
who paid too little attention to the fine print, who in many cases didnt understand it or
didnt care about it.
The contrast between that example and this Op-Ed by Paul Krugman (Edge of the
Abyss 2008) on October 3rd which suggests:
Theres growing evidence that the financial crunch is spreading to Main Street, with
small businesses having trouble raising money and seeing their credit lines cut. And
leading indicators for both employment and industrial production have turned sharply
worse, suggesting that even before Lehmans fall, the economy, which has been sagging
since last year, was falling off a cliff. How bad is it? Normally sober people are
sounding apocalyptic. On Thursday, the bond trader and blogger John Jansen declared
that current conditions are the financial equivalent of the Reign of Terror during the
French Revolution,while Joel Prakken of Macroeconomic Advisers says that the
economy seems to be on the edge of the abyss.
He continues:
For the fact is that the plan on offer is a stinker and inexcusably so. The financial
system has been under severe stress for more than a year, and there should have been
carefully thought-out contingency plans ready to roll out in case the markets melted
down. Obviously, there werent: the Paulson plan was clearly drawn up in haste and
confusion. And Treasury officials have yet to offer any clear explanation of how the plan
is supposed to work, probably because they themselves have no idea what theyre doing.
Despite this, as I said, I hope the plan passes, because otherwise well probably see even
worse panic in the markets. But at best, the plan will buy some time to seek a real
solution to the crisis.
The juxtaposition between Herberts suggestion to slow down the process and find an
appropriate solution, and Krugmans suggestion to pass admittedly inadequate legislation
to the tune of nearly $1 billion dollars is interesting. What is more interesting is thatKrugmans piece is joined by a chorus of others that all ran between September 30th and
October 3rd, immediately after the initial vote failed in the House. David Brooks Op-Ed
(Revolt of the Nihilists 2008) on September 30 th is critical of the failure of both
Democratic and Republican leadership when he suggests:
35
http://seekingalpha.com/article/98309-america-s-reign-of-terrorhttp://seekingalpha.com/article/98309-america-s-reign-of-terrorhttp://seekingalpha.com/article/98309-america-s-reign-of-terrorhttp://seekingalpha.com/article/98309-america-s-reign-of-terrorhttp://seekingalpha.com/article/98309-america-s-reign-of-terror -
8/14/2019 Bailout Blues 3.0
36/55
The only thing to do now is to try againto rescue the rescue. Theres no time to find a
brand-new package, so the Congressional plan should go up for another vote on Thursday,
this time with additions that would change its political prospects.
Thomas Friedmans Op-Ed (Rescue the Rescue 2008) on October 1st claims:
Ive been frightened for my country only a few times in my life: In 1962, when, even as
a boy of 9, I followed the tension of the Cuban missile crisis; in 1963, with the
assassination of JFK; on Sept. 11, 2001; and on Monday, when the House Republicans
brought down the bipartisan rescue package.
But it was not only Op-Eds that shifted their perspective. This column from September
1st by Jim Dwyer (The Crisis, as Seen by the Have-Nots) quotes a man working at a
barbecue stand who suggests in reference to those who voted against the Bailout, They
voted no, they dont have that right. The only way you can help the community is get it
passed.
After the initial vote failed, the dynamics of the frames shifted in the NYTs coverage. In
early coverage in the NYT, a theme within Frame 3 was that the Bailout should be
punitive this was similar to ZNets coverage, and Dean Baker, whose articles in ZNet
emphasized that theme, was actually quoted in a NYT article by Peter S. Goodman
(Experts See a Need for Punitive Action in Bailout 2008) that ran on September 23 rd.
Goodman quotes Baker who suggests:
This administration is asking for a $700 billion blank check to be put in the hands of
Henry Paulson, a guy who totally missed this, and has been wrong about almost
everything, said Dean Baker, co-director of the liberal Center for Economic and Policy
Research in Washington. Its almost amazing they can do this with a straight face. There
is clearly skepticism and anger at the idea that wed give this money to these guys, no
questions asked.
While theme of punitive action was consistently articulated in Frame 3 arguments in ZNet
throughout the period examined, this theme was prevalent in the NYT in early Frame 3
arguments but almost disappeared altogether after the initial vote failed. What replaced
the punitive action theme in the NYTs coverage were themes such as rescue the
36
-
8/14/2019 Bailout Blues 3.0
37/55
rescue and theres no time. Perhaps the best example of this is Joe Noceras article
(Market Cant Wait for Congress to Act 2008) in which he suggests, Congress is
fiddling while Rome is burning. This is a sharp contrast to an earlier article in which
Nocera compared the Bailout to a Hail Mary pass in football, which he suggested almostnever work.
As well as the shift in Frame 3 arguments, Frame 2 and 4 arguments shifted as well.
While many of the columns in the NYTs early coverage cited the populist outcry against
the Bailout, columns after the initial vote failed often expressed a growing popular
sentiment in favor of the Bailout. A good example is an article by David M. Herszenhorn
(Word Reaches Congress: As the Market Goes, So Goes the Electorate 2008) that
details how different actor in Congress were making decisions about the Bailout, and
what feedback they were getting from constituents. The author cites Rep. Jason Altmire
(D-Penn) who claims:
My calls are still running 10 to 1 against the Bailout, which sounds like a lot, but before
the vote, it was 30 to 1. After the vote, especially that afternoon as the market fell, our
calls were about 50-50.
The article next cites Rep. John Yarmuth (D-Ken) who claims:
Before the vote on Monday, I think our count was 965 to 60. On Tuesday, after the
market dropped, the calls started out in the morning saying, why dont you do
something. Once the market came back, they started evening out again. Now they are
running 50-50.
This article utilizes different aspects of Frames 2, 3, and 4. It implicitly suggests that
which is in keeping with the NYTs overall shift, which is that the Bailout, however
flawed, is necessary, and leaders in the political realm would be irresponsible to vote
against it, because to do so would do more harm to Main Street than is reasonable. It
seems that the NYTs message system, which in some aspects at first seemed to parallel
that of ZNet, became something altogether different when the Bailout looked as if itmight fail, and the stock markets began to sour. At that point, the NYTs coverage
focused more on how specific individuals such as those in the current administration and
Congress were affecting events at the present, emphasizing that they were accountable for
whatever harm the economy may incur. Moreover, the NYTs coverage more frequently
37
-
8/14/2019 Bailout Blues 3.0
38/55
espoused stabilizing the market in spite of how inadequate the proposed legislation might
befor that reason, I suggest that the NYT relies more upon the Economic
Stability/Personal Accountability message system.
38
-
8/14/2019 Bailout Blues 3.0
39/55
DISCUSSION
Research Questions
Q1. Did the NYT and ZNets coverage of the EESA differ? If so, how does field theory,
coupled with aspects of an organizational analysis, work to explain differences in
coverage?
Though early coverage in both organizations emphasized social justice themes and
referred to larger systemic shortcomings, the shift in the NYTs coverage after the initial
rejection of the proposed plan in the House of Representatives was quite obvious. ZNetscoverage was more consistent throughout the timeframe studied in its openly political and
ideological message system. The NYT, likely because of its stated commitment to
political neutrality tended not to discuss specific ideologies in great detail, though there
were some exceptions, particularly in the more critical Op-Ed or editorial pieces.
Field theory works to explain the differences in the two organizations message systems
by providing a means to locate the organizations within Bourdieus theoretical
construct, the journalistic field, which lies embedded within the larger field of power, of
which the political and economic fields are a part. The NYT, because it generates the
majority of its revenue through commercial advertising and because of its large
circulation, is high in economic capital. However, as Bourdieu suggests, the economic
field tends to exert its dominance, making other fields subservient. I suggest this is
particularly so in what Hallin and Mancini label a liberal media model. Evidence that
the economic field is particularly dominant within this model is presented in Duvals
work, which examines coverage of news in France at a time in which the media system
was transforming into a liberal model, and news organizations were adapting to that new
framework. In this study, it seems that the differences in coverage between the two
organizations can be explained by understanding their relative spatial positions within the
journalistic field. I believe when w