The Hightower Report

Wall Street's Journal

Media tycoon Rupert Murdoch bought The Wall Street Journal last year, and in short order he has turned it into a tongue-clucking sympathizer with and proselytizer for the biggest of big businesses – not only on its editorial pages but also in its news stories.

For example, a recent report on the economic trouble of America's financial giants was so saccharinely sympathetic to the bankers that you could practically see teardrops on the page. The opening paragraph wailed that the banking industry is "racked by the financial crisis and facing slower revenue growth." Nowhere in the story was there even a mention of the crucial fact that the racking was brought upon the poor bankers (not to mention the rest of us) by – guess who – the bankers themselves. Instead, the Journal wrote admiringly of Wells Fargo, American Express, State Street, and other powerhouses of finance that are nobly struggling "in challenging economic conditions" to cut costs and "become more efficient."

Would this admirable drive for efficiency include any sacrifices in salary, perks, or bonuses for the absurdly pampered top bankers? Holy Gordon Gekko, get real! No, no, sacrifice is for others. As the title of the Journal's article puts it, "Lenders See Little Choice: Layoffs" – and Murdoch's Wall Street Journal is not about to be so rude as to mention that if his banker chums really want to become leaner, they could start by looking in the mirror.

Indeed, in deference to the tender sensibilities of Wall Street, the Journal doesn't even refer to the offing of thousands of bank workers as firings. Rather, these people are soullessly termed "head-count reductions."

In word and tone, Murdoch is boiling journalism out of the once-proud news pages of the Journal, reducing the paper's proper name to Wall Street's Journal.

Three Stories, One Ugly Truth

I recently came across three stories that ran in The New York Times on the same day, each in different sections of the paper, yet all tied together across class, politics, and time.

In an editorial, the paper noted that after Wall Street crashed our economy, the Great Recession of 2008 caused another 1.7 million Americans to plummet into poverty. In 2009, though, even as joblessness soared, the poverty numbers did not rise. Why? Because President Obama's economic stimulus programs – including expanded unemployment benefits and an increase in food stamps – created a cushion that kept more people from dropping into poverty.

Meanwhile, on the front page, the Times reported that a handful of Americans are not suffering at all from the recession, even though they helped cause it. They are the partners in Goldman Sachs, who are now reaping multimillion-dollar bonuses for their work last year, even though they performed poorly – Goldman's profits tumbled in 2010, and it had to pay a half-billion-dollar penalty for practicing investor fraud. Goldman also lobbied Congress to pass a very special law in December that dramatically reduces the taxes on these bonuses. By the way, this same law cuts weekly payments to the unemployed – a wicked move that will push 175,000 more people into poverty this year.

Then, on the obituary page, the Times covered the death of Sargent Shiver. A lifetime idealist who worked tirelessly against poverty, Shriver helped create and run such pioneering efforts as the Peace Corps, Head Start, Job Corps, VISTA, and Legal Services in the 1960s.

How far we've come, huh? These three news stories jerk us from the time when America's political leaders had the stuff to battle poverty – to today, when our leaders battle the poor, even as they coddle the superrich.