Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

think

(11,641 posts)
Fri May 20, 2016, 03:58 PM May 2016

Vox’s Puff Piece on Goldman Sachs Doesn’t Reveal Goldman Sponsors Vox

Remember Vox's bogus tax calculator that misrepresented Bernie's tax plan. Goldman Sachs is their sponsor.


Vox’s Puff Piece on Goldman Sachs Doesn’t Reveal Goldman Sponsors Vox

By Adam Johnson - April27 2016

Vox’s Matthew Yglesias (4/25/16) gave a generous write-up to Goldman Sachs’ new commercial banking subsidiary, GS Bank, without noting that Goldman Sachs is a sponsor of Vox.

~Snip~

Missing from this report was any disclosure that Goldman Sachs is a sponsor of Vox’s podcast, The Weeds, co-costed by Yglesias. How much exactly Goldman Sachs pays Vox Media is unknown, but any amount should compel the “new media” company to note this fact when reporting on Goldman Sachs — especially when it’s promoting both its economic and political bottom line.

One of those Goldman-sponsored podcasts last week also served the investment bank’s interests: After much hand-wringing, the episode argued that raising income taxes on the super-wealthy didn’t actually do much to reduce inequality, with Yglesias asserting, “It is not a great idea to adopt an ‘inequality’ focus.” While it’s possible this conclusion may have been arrived at in good faith, it’s easy to see why Goldman Sachs—whose partners are worth an average of $24 million — would be interested in sponsoring a media company that aggressively argues against radical redistributive policies.

Last fall, the same week Vox’s podcast made an earlier argument against higher income taxes on the rich, Vox ran another Goldman Sachs puff piece: “Goldman Sachs Paid to Expand Pre-K in Utah. It Worked” (10/19/15), education reporter Libby Nelson’s glowing 870-word portrayal of Goldman Sachs as an educator of disadvantaged children. There was no disclosure in that piece, either, that Goldman was a Vox sponsor.

Vox Media, which landed a $200 million investment last August from Comcast (the same cable giant that helped seed it back in 2009 and 2012), has had previous disclosure problems. A Vox “explainer” last September (9/8/15; FAIR.org, 9/9/15) asserted that “cable bundling almost certainly saves customers money in aggregate,” singling out Comcast as a company that “may not be much loved by its customers, but it has the weight of their collective voice in its bargaining over carriage fees.” And Vox’s repeated attacks on single-payer healthcare (FAIR.org, 1/30/16) failed to mention that Comcast is a major investor in for-profit healthcare technology companies...

Read more:
http://fair.org/home/voxs-puff-piece-on-goldman-sachs-doesnt-reveal-goldman-sponsors-vox/


Hillary's favorite bank sponsors the media site that produced a bogus calculator with factually incorrect data to malign Bernie. And the corporate media giant Comcast whose lobbyists are busy raising money for Hillary also are a major investor in VOX.

Wake up people. You're being taken for a ride....
3 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Vox’s Puff Piece on Goldman Sachs Doesn’t Reveal Goldman Sponsors Vox (Original Post) think May 2016 OP
Redefining ''Disclosure Problems'' as they speak. Octafish May 2016 #1
Yglesias, eh? MisterP May 2016 #2
Just wow. JackRiddler May 2016 #3
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Vox’s Puff Piece on Goldm...