From Nation article,
The senator should not be taking heat for using “numbers that add up” to make a point about economic injustice.
“This is where Sanders, a democratic socialist who has sometimes been accused of focusing too intensely on economic issues, is coming from. Voters can agree or disagree with the vision. But it is hard to disagree with the basic premise of the argument, which is based on facts and figures.
Unless, apparently, you are a fact-checker for The Washington Post.
Then, you can dismiss the argument that Sanders is making as “not especially meaningful.” That’s what the Post’s Glenn Kessler and his team did in an otherwise useful fact-checking of the second night of Democratic debating. Here’s how the complaint was presented:
“Three people in this country own more wealth than the bottom half of America”—Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) This snappy talking point is based on numbers that add up, but it’s also a question of comparing apples to oranges. Sanders is drawing on a 2017 report from the left-leaning Institute for Policy Studies, which said that three billionaires—Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos (who owns The Washington Post) and Warren Buffett—had total wealth of $248.5 billion, compared to $245 billion for the bottom 160 million of the United States. The wealth of the three men has gone up even more since then.
But people in the bottom half have essentially no wealth, as debts cancel out whatever assets they might have. So the comparison is not especially meaningful.”
Why is it that the “liberal press” would work so consistently to deride the legitimacy of arguments made concerning the outrageous disparities in wealth held amongst people of the United States of America? Consider who own the American media and the ultimate purpose it serves. The clues are there. What we need is a press that is not for profit, a good chunk of public airwaves, for instance, owned by the public instead of large corporations. This aspect of socialist democracy should scare the corporate media that offers nothing akin to a free press. In or current state of being, the news is bought and sold as a commodity, adjusted to suit those who can pay the most to have their truths advertised even if they are not really true.