Framing the question this way is precisely the issue.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/245658.php 

We are ingnorant of so much of the internal workings of what has happened that we are ambivalent of how to proceed. And I mean we in a very involved sense.

Citibank and others need to come before congress and be required to give the nation a complete rundown of their balance sheet so we can get a handle on this. We need to know what pieces of their portfolios are the ones causing the heartburn to precisely identify what went wrong. The necessity of fixing this is obvious but we need also to address the causes and make sure congress follows up with appropriate regulatory action to prevent a reoccurrence. Fixing something that is broken implies you know precisely why it broke. The why question may be troublesome for some people but if management in the banking sector messed up we need to know the why and how. The country rightly has to have these answers before and as a condition of forking over trillions of dollars.

Josh questions how is the public interest served by maintaining shareholder equity. I suspect it is served because there are an awful lot of institutional investors managing the 401Ks and IRAs of citizens or just plain citizens holding Citibank stock.

Man the phones. Call. Call. Call. Your senators and representatives.

Demand unconditional transparency or forget it.

Over the course of the last several years I hope voters learned it's up to us to keep an eye on government because government sure as hell isn't up to the task. And sure as hell they'll screw up unless somebody is watching. And keep in mind this money is being borrowed. Interest on that borrowing makes the real cost way higher.

Mark Halperin states with certainty a media bias having influenced the outcome of the presidential election.

True? I don't think so.

I would argue the reporting accurately reflected the mood of the country. If the media, particularly in editorial commentary, reflects that mood then is it properly called bias or is it merely accurate reporting? Bias carries with it an implication of being at least somewhat false, contrary to facts or misleading. It is hard to make that case in this instance. Polling has indicated for quite some time that the country has been on the wrong track etc. In a comparative sense we also saw the media eventually having gotten to the point where they called out McCain and Palin on their outrageously over the top claims about Obama.

I just don't see where Halperin has this correct at all. At least not in the medias portrayal of the mood of voters.