Connect with us
Barrett News Media Summit 2024

BNM Writers

News Organizations Shouldn’t Cheer the Fox News Dominion Voting Systems Settlement

Anybody who is part of a news organization should know better than to cheer for a decision that goes against the First Amendment.

Andy Bloom

Published

on

A picture of the FOX logo outside the company's headquarters.

The trial was hours away from commencing. The jury was selected, and lawyers were ready to make their opening statements when a settlement was reached in Dominion Voting System’s defamation suit against Fox News.

Fox will pay Dominion $787.5 million, about half what it originally sought ($1.6 billion). Fox also issued a statement acknowledging “the Court’s rulings finding certain claims about Dominion to be false.” However, it did not admit wrongdoing or make any on-air apologies or retractions.

The settlement helped Fox avoid further embarrassing revelations and testimony. However, the settlement was also a relief for Dominion, facing a difficult, long, and expensive legal battle that would have gone through many appeals before the company could claim victory.

Most of the media cheered the agreement, widely seen as a victory for Dominion. That is a short-sighted mistake.

I do not excuse what Fox News did in the aftermath of the 2020 election. Two months ago, I wrote a column about the importance of credibility.

The Fox News prime-time hosts are opinion commentators and do not claim to be journalists. During the discovery phase of the trial, texts between the hosts made it clear they thought the guests they had on spreading conspiracy theories about the 2020 election were either crazy or lying.

News organizations and journalists should consider the settlement troubling for journalism and democracy. The settlement could have a chilling effect on journalism for several reasons.

  • If people are afraid to speak out about controversial issues for fear of being sued, it will be more difficult for society to have a healthy and informed debate.
  • If journalists are afraid to report on allegations of wrongdoing against powerful individuals for fear of being sued, it will be more difficult to expose corruption and other abuses of power.
  • The settlement could lead to a decline in the quality of journalism. If journalists are less willing to take risks and report on controversial stories, the public will be less informed about important issues.
  • The settlement could undermine public trust in the media. If people believe the media is biased or untrustworthy, they will be less likely to rely on it for information.

Liberals will dismiss these thoughts because they don’t believe Fox News does journalism or that these issues affect what they consider real journalism.

We don’t know what other media members say in their private communications. When the day comes that CNN and MSNBC hosts must turn over their text messages to a court, we may find out that they are as guilty of lying to their audiences as Fox News.

Were they truthful with their audiences daily when they had “breaking news about Russia, Russia, Russia!” during the first two years of the Trump administration, or were they that gullible?

CNN, NBC News, and The Washington Post settled with the family of Nicholas Sandman, a Kentucky high school student, in their $250 million defamation suit a few years ago. What would the internal private communications have revealed if that case had moved forward?

Weeks before the 2020 election, The New York Post revealed that Hunter Biden’s laptop existed and contained considerable information about the Biden family’s financial dealings. Twitter squelched reports about the laptop. We now know that Twitter and other social media companies received false reports from the FBI suggesting the laptop was “Russian misinformation.”

Further, 51 former U.S. intelligence officers, including several prior CIA directors, signed a letter discrediting the report on the laptop. The letter said, “Our experiences make us deeply suspicious that the Russian government played a significant role in this case. If we are right, this is Russia trying to influence how Americans vote in this election.” The letter goes on to identify how the laptop is consistent with Russian operations and election interference.

Last week, we learned from Mike Morell, former deputy CIA director under President Obama, that the letter was the work of the Biden campaign. Morell told Congress, under oath, that the point person was Anthony Blinken, then a senior advisor to the Biden campaign, who was rewarded for his work by being appointed Secretary of State. The letter aimed to get the media to dismiss The New York Post’s story and “help Joe Biden win the election.”

It turns out that people entrusted with the highest level of security clearance and the nation’s secrets abused their privileges to influence how Americans vote in the election. Somehow, I suspect the people cheering Fox paying Dominion over three-quarters of a billion dollars aren’t concerned with this election interference or abuse of power.

John Brennen and James Clapper, for example, signed the letter. Brennen was (and is) a paid contributor to MSNBC and NBC News. Clapper was (and is) a paid contributor to CNN.

Rudy Giuliani and Donald Trump, among others, may have a valid defamation suit against these two and the other 49 signatories of the letter and their cable organizations. What would private communications between Brennen, Clapper, Blinken, and people at CNN and MSNBC that occurred on or about October 19, 2020, tell us about the integrity of the Biden campaign and those news organizations?

For those foolish enough to believe that only Fox News engaged in giving its audience what it wanted to hear regardless of the truth, your day of reckoning will come. Although let’s hope that every news organization learned from Fox News’ inexcusable mistake.

Nobody should excuse Fox News for playing to the audience instead of delivering truthful information. On the other hand, anybody who is part of a news organization should know better than to cheer for a decision that goes against the First Amendment.

I wrote this column on Sunday. On Monday, in a move that stunned the media world, Fox Corp. terminated its relationship with Tucker Carlson, the host of the top-rated show on cable news. Carlson was one of the central figures in Dominion Voting Systems defamation suit against Fox. Carlson’s dismissal is said to be unrelated to the case.

It seems unlikely that Fox decided to part ways with Carlson because of or primarily because of his role in the Dominion case. If no other reason, almost everybody at Fox News knew that the claims guests were making about election fraud were either lies or the people making them were insane.

However, if you read Dominion Voting System’s entire filing: Dominion Voting System Filing Against Fox News Corp

You could conclude that Carlson was the most aware of ideas the network was promoting that were false and perhaps legal liability. On the other hand, he was probably also the most concerned about the competitive dangers of telling viewers the truth. Hannity also wasn’t buying theories put forth by guests such as Sydney Powell.

Los Angeles Times television and media reporter Stephen Battaglio wrote, “Carlson’s exit is related to the discrimination lawsuit filed by Abby Grossberg, the producer fired by the network last month, the sources said”. Fox supposedly also terminated Carlson’s senior executive producer Justin Wells.

Battaglio also reported Fox Corp. Chairman Rupert Murdoch was concerned regarding Carlson’s coverage of January 6, 2021, events at the U.S. Capitol.

Almost as if on cue, CNN terminated Don Lemon about an hour after Carlson and Fox parted ways. In one of the more unusual terminations, CNN didn’t inform Lemon directly. Instead, CNN terminated Lemon through his agent, something I’ve never heard of before.

Lemon’s rating performance at night was poor. In a final attempt to save him, CNN’s new boss, Chris Licht, moved Lemon to mornings. Not only did his ratings continue to flounder, but he also created an embarrassing media incident when he said Republican presidential candidate Nikki Haley was “past her prime.” Not satisfied with putting his foot firmly in his mouth, Lemon continued, “A woman is considered to be in their prime in their 20s and 30s and maybe 40s.”

Then in early April, Variety published a story with statements from over a dozen sources currently or previously employed by CNN. Each claimed that Lemon repeatedly disrespected women at CNN. Worse, the report claims that Lemon harassed and sent threatening texts to his CNN This Morning co-hosts. It didn’t take a crystal ball to see what was coming next.

Lemon was fortunate to hang on as long as he did. He received more than his fair share of chances.

When a host with Carlson’s ratings gets unceremoniously dumped, there’s always more going on than anybody will say.

The terminations of Carlson and Lemon probably do have a common thread. In both cases, management decided that they’d had enough. In Lemon’s case, it was much easier to see what was coming than for Carlson.

Both cases serve as a reminder of a quote from Alex Karras’ character, Mongo, in Mel Brooks’ great comedy Blazing Saddles, “Mongo only pawn in game of life.”

A couple of years from now, the dueling stories set against the background of the 2020 election and the Dominion Voting System’s case will make a great Netflix movie. I guarantee somebody with inside sources is writing the book now.

Subscribe To The BNM Rundown

The Top 8 News Media Stories of the Day, sent directly to your inbox every afternoon!

Invalid email address
We promise not to spam you. You can unsubscribe at any time.
Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

BNM Writers

77 WABC and Newsmax Host Greg Kelly Tackles AI, Trust in Media, and Advice for the Next Generation

“I do think it’s important to experience life before you start kind of evaluating things. I think it’s very important to learn a skill.”

Published

on

A photo of Greg Kelly
(Photo: Greg Kelly)

Greg Kelly — who hosts shows on both 77 WABC in New York and nationally on conservative cable news outlet Newsmax — is one of the hardest-working men in the industry.

“I am working approximately 11 hours a day, developing content for, two programs that I host,” Kelly told Barrett News Media over a Zoom call.

His shows have no scripts, and provide incredibly unique, very engaging content for his listeners.

Before joining the media Greg Kelly, like his famous father Former NYPD Commissioner Ray Kelly, served in the Marine Corps. The younger Kelly retired from the Marines with the rank of Lieutenant Colonel before gracing America’s TV stations.

With over 20 years experience, he has covered some of the most important national events of our time. Even being injured while covering the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003.

Artificial Intelligence

While some on the left find him controversial, many right-leaning voters seek his wisdom — including on Artificial Intelligence being used in the media.

“I have experimented with all of the chatbots, especially, ChatGPT, and honestly for all the hype, I recognize that there are aspects to AI that are not necessarily accessible to the consumer or the user.”

Kelly added, “There are things going on with supercomputers and whatnot. But, I had not been impressed, quite frankly, with the output of, artificial intelligence. You can usually spot it right away. The questions that I’ve asked it, have not yielded usable results. To me, it’s like a crude Wikipedia. It just doesn’t, and it’s not as useful as even Wikipedia or your basic data you can find on the internet.”

When asked about concerns on how Artificial Intelligence is going to affect the election this year, Kelly said, “Well, I’ve seen these things myself, and you can kind of spot them right away. And I think the American voter and the American media consumer has achieved a certain level of sophistication. So, no, I’m not particularly concerned.”

Greg Kelly went on to give an example.

“The other day I saw something — Alvin Bragg announcing his resignation — and I knew in about a second and a half that it was fake. So these things are out there. It’s like a political cartoon. I would almost liken it to the political cartoons of yesteryear.”

He continued to say, “People can have a pretty good ability to figure out what’s true and what’s not in terms of what you’re talking about. The deep, the I guess they follow of deepfakes or whatever. Those things I think are detectable.”

Trust in Media

To be better media consumers Kelly believes viewers and listeners should do their own research before blindly following talking heads.

“Why rely on the media to give you a summary of things that you can access yourself? You know, for instance, these indictments of Donald Trump have been floating around,” he said. “I’ve yet to meet anybody who’s read one. I’ve yet to meet anyone, including folks in the media who actually sat down and read those 92 pages of Justice Engoron, [which were] released last Friday.”

He added, “You can, as a citizen, as a person, access this material there’s no need for, I mean, theoretically, for you to rely on anyone else to tell you about it. Most likely the person telling you about it hasn’t actually read it. They’re relying on yet somebody else’s summary.”

Greg Kelly went on to say, “Why do we need people who we know will distorting and almost I’m not saying that’s necessarily malicious, although often it is. But why go through that step? Why do we need people on the news at night to tell us things that we can access ourselves?”

He also recognized the limitations of working people saying, “Now, I understand, you know, the daily ritual that people are working in, that kind of thing. But, you know, people do consume a lot of content on their phones and elsewhere. I have been urging people to, you know, if you want to be as smart or smarter than somebody from The New York Times, read the primary source documents, which are often accessible to all of us.”

Advice to the Next Generation

His advice for young aspiring media personalities begins with a question.

“I would ask them first ‘Why?’ What is it you want to do?” Kelly later added, “I do think it’s important to experience life before you start kind of evaluating things. I think it’s very important to learn a skill.”

Once one has the answer to that question, Kelly’s advice is both lengthy and wise.

“Number one: Read a lot of nonfiction. Everybody reads tweets. Everybody is surfing the internet. Very few people read books. That’s important. And no matter really what it is, personally, if you are interested in current events, politics, I do recommend nonfiction bestsellers. It is absolutely incredible what people are not reading.”

Greg Kelly continued by saying, “I would suggest, if you’re genuinely curious about what’s happening in the world — and that’s kind of where my impetus to do this kind of stuff is based on curiosity. And that’s kind of a rare thing I’ve come to discover. I thought more people were curious. I thought everybody had a level of curiosity. I’m shocked at how incurious people are. But I would say, yeah, read a lot of nonfiction.”

Second, Kelly advises, “I would say, try thinking about acquiring a skill. A true skill that is marketable, that you can make money from. Whether it’s becoming a pilot, whether it’s becoming an engineer, and then possibly embarking in media. We don’t know what it’s going to look like in a couple of years, right? Seems to be changing rather fast.

“I also tell people, no matter how old they are, if they’re asking me for advice, to do what I did about ten years ago, which was start reading the Bible. I took it for granted and I didn’t think too deeply about faith. In my earlier years, I was an atheist for a while. But about ten years ago, I started reading the Bible a bit more seriously.”

He succinctly wrapped up his advice by stating, “Start reading. Think about getting a skill and faith is important. I encourage them to take the journey if they wish.”

Subscribe To The BNM Rundown

The Top 8 News Media Stories of the Day, sent directly to your inbox every afternoon!

Invalid email address
We promise not to spam you. You can unsubscribe at any time.
Continue Reading

BNM Writers

Deciphering What CBS Got Right and Wrong in the Catherine Herridge Saga

The actual details and timeline are quite murky.

Bill Zito

Published

on

A photo of the CBS News logo

There’s been significant media reporting and analysis concerning the very recent terminations of CBS employees, some quite familiar and one highlighted above them all because of her notoriety, her work and accusations that her exit was different from others in her situation.

Catherine Herridge is known for her political coverage past and present and more than anything, I think she has now become the poster child for what’s perceived as a controversial dismissal and alleged questionable termination practices.

If you read the reporting, Ms. Herridge, along with about 800 others recently were let go from Paramount and CBS in cost-cutting actions. Among stories out there are several stating that Herridge’s notes, files, and confidential information were “seized” by CBS management after she was let go.

This is certainly worth delving into if it’s true, or at least true in the way it has been depicted in the media so far.

I keep reading and hearing that reporter files and content are not retained by stations, networks, and parent companies following separations and that somehow this is a strange and unusual occurrence.

Somehow, people are inferring, it must have been done for reasons directly related to Herridge and her coverage of Hunter Biden, President Biden and the White House.

Okay, I guess.

Let’s be clear here, I will never claim to know anything, much less everything, and my experience and exposure to such matters is severely limited at best. But, I have worked more than a few jobs, at more than a few places, many of them in news, and among a slew of commonalities I have come face to face with are onboarding paperwork and company handbooks that pretty much lay out the groundwork that content generated, utilized or gathered under the company employ is in whole or part, theirs.

Meaning, a lot of the time, the company says it belongs to them, or at least both parties.

I’m not an attorney but I have seen writings like this before and, to be fair, I usually would skip down to the parts about non-compete clauses and how many vacation days I might get.

It sort of makes at least some sense to me.

You’re sitting at our desk, using our resources while gathering stories for our company to make use of as we see fit.

Yes, it’s ours but you probably, and hopefully, have copies of everything yourself and if you don’t, I for one, think you’re pretty silly.

The content a journalist or investigative reporter generates while working for an employer is not necessarily their sole property as many of us out there understand it. They create it at the behest and under the direction of a parent company, a station, or a network so I’m thinking it’s not just theirs.

In the case of Ms. Herridge, there are conflicting versions of what actually transpired in all this. And nearly all of it is attributed to sources and opinion columns like that of Jonathan Turley, who is older, far more experienced, and certainly better educated than I.

Turley wrote in part,” A former CBS manager, who also spoke on condition of anonymity, said that he had “never heard of anything like this.” He attested to the fact that, in past departures, journalists took all of their files and office contents. Indeed, the company would box up everything from cups to post-its for departing reporters. He said the holding of the material was “outrageous” and clearly endangered confidential sources.”

Okay, that’s one school of thought for sure. Apparently, the SAG-AFTRA union agrees, calling it, according to Turley, “very unusual” and “a matter of serious concern”.

I’ll buy that, if that’s how things happened. But in all my reading on the subject, the actual details and timeline are quite murky. Were there discussions or negotiations during any potential out-processing or exit interviews?

Everyone referenced except those identified as uninvolved business analysts is unnamed, unidentified, or a confidential source.

CBS denied seizing material yet it also says the files and materials have been returned. So, which Is it?

Herridge, as far as I have read, has said nothing but, nonetheless, the House Judiciary Committee has reportedly asked questions about her termination and the claims of personal files and notes being seized.

So, accurate or not, it looks like more than just a few people are rattled by all this.

As a cop, I knew a lot of detectives and patrol officers who had snitches and informants and it was not always like all these identities and information were passed up the chain of command.

“If you want to keep a secret, don’t tell the boss.”

-Jimmy Malone, The Untouchables.

Do journalists share every source, note, and contact with their bosses? My guess is no, but is it unreasonable for an employer to have access to content, background, and related materials so when someone else picks up the next chapter of the story they are not starting from a blank page?

Would it be right if Herridge left of her own accord and said, “Sorry, I’m taking everything I’ve done while you’ve been paying me and supporting my efforts with me and you’ll have to reinvestigate and pursue your own sources and contacts?”

Does that seem reasonable or even likely?

Hopefully, there is a bit more mutual respect between journalists and employers than has been implied by the stories published since Herridge and many others were separated from Paramount and CBS. Equally, I would trust that nobody at CBS is unaware that anything left behind in the form of content, product and notes has not already been copied and is safely in the possession of those who were shown the door.

Let’s be real here, please.

I still have my old desk blotter from when I was a producer in Seattle in 1999. Prior to the common use of all the electronic information storage choices, I would write names and numbers on my desk calendar, and when I ran out of months, I wrote it on the cardboard underneath. I took that cardboard with me to my next job and the job after that and the job after that. I’m pretty sure if I unearthed it today there would be at least one name and number that would still be useful, but it’s really not holding any particular information that the station didn’t have also.

However, If the nice people at KIRO asked if I had so and so’s name or number from 25 years ago, I would unpack a box and gladly offer it up.

Again, if you’re not making a copy of everything you do for your own reference and future use then I don’t know what to tell you.

This is news and in this and many other businesses, you can be out the door at any given moment so I’m pretty confident Ms. Herridge has everything she came to CBS with and much more. And I find nothing wrong with that.

If you or others want to read into some sort of political motives and conspiracy because of Herridge’s reporting and her story coverage, well, that’s up to you. Have fun with that.

What am I missing here?

When a reporter, investigative or not, does work for a station or network or any outlet really, pretty much anything they’re doing is retained and archived. Coverage of countless stories as they unfold, can continue for weeks, months, and years.

Did Carl Bernstein take everything with him when he left The Washington Post?

The Post still had to cover countless aspects of Watergate and the Nixon administration and everything that followed long after he departed and I imagine Woodward couldn’t fill in all the holes just because he stuck around.

I see this all as either very simple or extremely complicated depending perhaps on what the actual big deal is here.

Is it because this is about Catherine Herridge and people are angry that she was given a pink slip? Is anyone upset about the other people also losing their jobs?

I am really asking the questions here.

Am I way off base in my thinking?

Is what I am putting forth here incorrect, erroneous and without factual basis?

If I am on the wrong side of the truth here, I will accept it and stand wide open in admitting it. I also welcome the reeducation I must sorely require.

Or, could it be that this is simply about money?

Show me the inner workings of the financial wizards who pay an exceedingly small number of individuals inflated wages while eliminating the lowest-paid support staff in the interest of fat-trimming and cost-cutting but who will, every once in a while, publicly toss a few well-compensated “sacrificial lambs” into the fire to try and make themselves look and feel better.

Or if, as the conspiracy theorists have already begun to claim, Herridge is being silenced for her work and revelations, firing her is not exactly the best way to accomplish that. She is well-known, respected, and incredibly good at her job. As we will no doubt see very soon, she will land someplace else, perhaps before my prattling here even makes it online.

I’m sure NewsNation has another hour of availability in their lineup.

By the way, I certainly hope that Mr. Pegues, Ms. Ruffini, and Ms. Falk land on their feet along with all of the reported 800 others that were let go in what has been described in job action terms as a “bloodbath”.

In regard to Mr. Turley’s outrage at the actions taken by CBS, I will point out that on my and most anyone’s best day, none would likely be professionally capable of carrying his briefcase or laptop. My opinion and perspective are offered here, of course, and remain my own.

With that in mind I will also state simply and humbly to Mr. Turley that merely quoting Murrow and Cronkite in your opinion piece does not validate your point to a higher degree, no matter how renowned and accomplished you, yourself may be.

But in the interest of fairness and curiosity, I will give it a shot:

“We are in the same tent as the clowns and the freaks-that’s show business.”
– Edward R. Murrow

“And that’s the way it is.”

-Walter Cronkite

Subscribe To The BNM Rundown

The Top 8 News Media Stories of the Day, sent directly to your inbox every afternoon!

Invalid email address
We promise not to spam you. You can unsubscribe at any time.
Continue Reading

BNM Writers

Can the Media Predict America’s Looming Challenge?

Based on data and polls, are that President Donald Trump could begin his 2nd term in about eleven months, and similar to his first time in office, many think he’ll have his work cut out for him.

Rick Schultz

Published

on

A photo of the American flag

While many experts are predicting brighter economic days ahead, some media pundits are warning that it might take longer than expected to get the good times rolling again.

A former World Bank President took to the airwaves recently to share his opinion about what faces the U.S. economy in the future, and what can be done to reverse the current period of instability and hardship. 

Based on data and polls, are that former President Donald Trump could begin his 2nd term in about eleven months, and similar to his first time in office, many think he’ll have his work cut out for him.

“Growth in the U.S. held up last year, up more than three percent annually in the fourth quarter, despite inflation, high rates, global tensions,” Barron’s Roundtable host, Jack Hough, began on Friday. “But my next guest says this news is not as good as it sounds on the surface.”

“The storm is, growth simply not fast enough to raise peoples’ living standards or to pay back the debt,” David Malpass began on the Fox Business program. “You’ve got the energy problems that are mounting in the world. Germany today, I don’t know if you saw, but lowered their forecast for 2024 to only .2 percent. So basically, a really severe slowdown or recession going on in Europe.”

U.S. national debt has now surpassed a record $34 trillion, and the Federal Reserve is predicting American GDP will only grow at an anemic 1.4 percent this year. Even more soberingly, they expect only 1.8 percent growth next year. That’s a far cry from the 2.5 percent annual growth spurred by Mr. Trump during his first three years in office.

“Africa and Latin America are in deep trouble and it all stems back to the U.S. holding up it’s growth by simply borrowing money from everybody else to dump it into the economy,” Malpass added.

“What should the next president do first, bearing in mind that it could take some cooperation from Congress?” Hough asked.

“It could, but the Commander in Chief has huge power to state the outlook for the U.S., but also for the world. The world waits with bated breath to hear what the U.S. is going to do in terms of economic policy, in terms of foreign policy and energy policy,” Malpass, the former Treasury Undersecretary added, noting that the policies of the current administration are not helping matters. “The latest is cutting off the LNG exports. That’s driven the natural gas prices down in the U.S. It’s gone down by 50 percent just since January.”

While that might sound great to homeowners and consumers on the surface, Malpass says it has created more harm than good.

“What that means is lots of jobs lost in the U.S., but for the rest of the world what it means is a shortage of energy. And that’s really important to their GDP,” he said. “So the new President has to say, we’re going to create an environment in the world where the U.S. can grow fast. That’s a top priority. And that’s going to allow us to project security for the world. And that will comfort everyone and allow them to begin investing again.”

Hough pointed out that last year, 2023, ended up being much better economically than most analysts predicted prior to the year. 

“The U.S. spent a lot more than was expected,” Malpass explained. “ And also, I think, the model has changed for the interest rate hikes. You know in the past when the Fed raised interest rates, that meant that people felt the bite. But this time the government is borrowing so much itself that as the rates go up, they’re paying all the upper-income people around the U.S., and even outside the U.S., top dollar for all of this borrowed money.

“So as the interest rates went up, it caused a huge spewing of money into the economy. Plus the direct government spending. So I think the projections didn’t work out for the U.S., but if we look outside the U.S. the slowdown was intense. Just as bad as expected.”

Hough highlighted a recent piece Malpass wrote in The Wall Street Journal, in which he illustrated a model that worked in such a difficult historical economic situation – Ronald Reagan’s combination of pro-growth policies and peace through strength. And while not mentioning Trump by name during the entirety of the interview, it was clear that Malpass believes such an approach will certainly be needed by our next president.

“We hear some growing calls in the U.S. for a more isolationist stance. Do you see any kind of a risk there?” Hough asked. 

“I think isolationism is not the answer. It is peace through strength. And Reagan did that through having a strong economy and then by having a strong defense policy that showed the Soviet Union that communism was not going to be given this free ride,” Malpass said, echoing the policies that succeeded under Trump’s first term. Most experts, however, think it unlikely that today’s Democratic party would do such an about-face against socialism and communism around the world. Especially as the party pushes such policies at home.

“That, of course, brought down communism. It fell of its own weight,” Malpass said. “And that was a giant relief for the world. We ended up with a peace dividend and so it was a good investment to have the U.S. be strong, because that then stabilized the world. We can do that again. Markets are forward-looking. And so if they see the U.S. talking about defending the dollar, controlling the government spending so that there’s some money left over for the rest of the people in the U.S. and around the world.”

Malpass told Hough that the results of such an approach would be tangible for working American families.

“That will allow interest rates to come down, which would be positive. And it means that there can be more growth,” Malpass said. “Right now, we’re looking at this prospect of some years of really stagnant growth.”

In other words, even though he did it once, Mr. Trump’s second go-around might be even more challenging than the first.

Subscribe To The BNM Rundown

The Top 8 News Media Stories of the Day, sent directly to your inbox every afternoon!

Invalid email address
We promise not to spam you. You can unsubscribe at any time.
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Advertisement
Advertisement

Upcoming Events

BNM Writers

Copyright © 2024 Barrett Media.