When something good happens, the media won’t say so
It’s eat-your-spinach week at All Predictions Wrong. Today an analysis of the World Bank; next, Social Security reform
A few days ago, World Bank president David Malpass quietly stepped down four years into a five-year term, replaced by former Mastercard chair Ajay Banga, a skilled technocrat with a perfect resume for the job. It was an orderly, planned transition -- unlike 2019, when World Bank president Jim Yong Kim suddenly quit as investigators began asking about expense-account money and whether World Bank data was altered to please China.
Malpass’s tenure was marked by strong progress against poverty, high morale among staffers, moderate progress against climate change and significant World Bank involvement in preventing the national finances of Ukraine from collapsing. Malpass, who is fluent in several languages, also engaged in shuttle diplomacy to stave off Egypt and Ethiopia going to war over Nile River water, and threw himself into such low-profile but vital issues as urging Indonesia to adopt sustainable production of palm oil.
Because Malpass was chosen by Donald Trump, he endured regular political and media barrages. Turnabout is fair play: Malpass engaged in partisan politics at points in his career, including a campaign for the Senate seat eventually won by Kirsten Gillibrand. Ultimately Malpass made the mistake of trusting the New York Times – more on that in a moment – setting his departure in motion.
I’ve known and admired Malpass since we attended the wonderful Colorado College together, so I was openly rooting for him. (Quick aside so you can locate me ideologically: I support a carbon tax and have been writing for 20 years that human impact on climate is proven, but we should be optimistic.) And though I wish the Acela establishment had treated Malpass better, he’s a grown man and went into the World Bank job with his eyes open.
Malpass pushed the Bank toward emphasis on per-capita income growth as the most important concern for average people of the developing world. Global poverty is in decline, especially in Asia, and World Bank action is been a positive factor.
In several roles at the Treasury Department, Malpass worked to stabilize developing-world currencies – exchange rates are his academic specialty -- contending that currency swings harm average people far more than the rich. At the World Bank he helped remove Chinese Communist Party influence. There is a disturbing amount of CCP corruption in international institutions, and disturbing willingness to cover for this among United States elites.
Bankers are perceived as Daddy Warbucks types, cackling as they count doubloons. In reality a lot of international banking is very policy-wonk. Malpass’s work on banking technical subjects got zero attention in the American media – because nothing went wrong, the media only report scandal and outrage. We can hope Banga’s work in the technical parts of finance will be better received.
There’s a great deal the mainstream media doesn’t mention, despite seemingly unlimited time and line-length for political spats and Prince Harry.
For instance, developing-world poverty, the World Bank’s primary responsibility, is in long-term decline. This isn’t just some weird coincidence, smart policies from multilateral institutions are one reason. The decline of global poverty helps tens of millions of human beings but does not cause anxiety or fear, so has been banished from the MSM/political/Ivy League narrative.
On a smaller scale, the good things Malpass did at the World Bank were with few exceptions (see the CNN link below) unmentioned in the MSM. This is a case study in how what media don’t say can be as important as what they do.
When Malpass was chosen by Trump – the United States picks the head of the World Bank, the European Union picks the head of the International Monetary Fund – establishment commentary expressed horror. If Trump likes this guy he must be evil, so evil! That Malpass broke with Trump over global warming was noticed by the Washington Post yet a forbidden thought to the Times.
Malpass worked in the Treasury Department under three presidents, and in those roles promoted both developing-world economic growth and impoverished-nation debt relief. These achievements pretty much went unmentioned.
The whole notion that a Republican economist could care about the developing-world – wanting developing nations to succeed on their own, not be dependent on the West – was offensive to the MSM, which will brook no admirable conservative.
By 2020, Malpass had a remarkable achievement: integrating the World Bank into the Paris climate accords. Trump had withdrawn the United States from the Paris framework and often ranted against it. Malpass was expected to quake in fear before Trump. Instead he went his own way and “aligned” (diplomacy speak) the Bank with Paris climate change initiatives.
David Malpass. World Bank photo.
This was received as major news overseas – and completely ignored by the New York Times. It’s impossible to prove a negative, but I’ve spent a while with the Times index and not found any mention of Malpass taking the World Bank into the Paris accords. Had a World Bank president chosen by a Democratic White House done exactly the same thing, praise would have been lavished.
There is a fair debate regarding whether climate change or economic growth should come first for policymakers. Generally, economic growth leads not just to better lives for average people but to reduced pollution. Probably growth comes first, then environmental protection. But given the possibility of a global warming tipping point, there’s a fair debate here.
Malpass has always argued for growth first, tried to balance policy by endorsing emphasis on global warming. In early September 2022 the World Bank made this announcement – a record $31.7 billion for investments in preventing or mitigating climate change.
It was the third consecutive fiscal year under Malpass that World Bank spending on climate hit a record. Sounds pretty good, right? Not to the New York Times.
The Multicolored Lady invited Malpass to speak at a Times-sponsored forum. Foolishly, naively, he expected to be asked about the greenhouse gas reduction projects the World Bank was backing. Instead Al Gore, who has a personal financial stake in selling environmental alarmism, came on first and called Malpass a “climate denier,” demanding his firing.
You remember Al Gore – the same guy who, in the White House, did nothing to try to get the Kyoto Protocol ratified by the Senate. Then, leaving Washington, discovered there was money for him in environmental alarmism. That guy.
Not to be Miss Clavel, but “climate denier” doesn’t even make sense. No one denies there is a climate. Hillary Clinton often calls people she doesn’t like “climate deniers.” Is it really too much to ask that American national leaders pay attention to the words they say?
In any event Malpass made his mistake. Reporter David Gelles asked Malpass three times if he accepts “the scientific consensus the world is dangerously warming.”
Thrice Malpass answered by talking about substantive World Bank programs to mitigate climate change. His answers were dull – a lot of economics is dull – but substantive. The Times wasn’t interested in substance, it was interested in upholding the MSM narrative that a Trump appointee cannot care about the environment or the developing world.
Finally Malpass got frustrated, called the line of questioning “very odd” – judge for yourself, click the video, the exchanges begin at around 4 minutes – then said, “I am not a scientist.”
The New York Times would go on to run not one not two not three but eight news articles or opinion pieces expressing outrage that the president of the World Bank said, “I am not a scientist.” Malpass is indeed not a scientist – why would the World Bank be helmed by a scientist? – so the statement that got him into hot water was factually true.
It was the Times’s question that was factually inaccurate. The National Academy of Sciences found in 2014 there is “clear evidence” of human influence on climate. That much is incontrovertible. But the Times said there is a “scientific consensus the world is dangerously warming.” There is no scientific consensus on the degree of danger. The most recent IPCC report bends toward climate risks being real but manageable.
But Malpass had said something short that can be made to sound bad, and that was all that mattered. Listen to the conversation – Malpass spent several minutes discussing (in a dull way) why he cared about climate change and was working against it. Then he spoke five words that could be pulled out of context and presented as if the head of a vital international institution denied the obvious about there being global warming.
Six months before Malpass’s statement, Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson, asked to define “woman,” answered, “I am not a biologist.” The MSM loved that response. When Malpass said the same thing in the same context (expressing absence of scientific credentials), the MSM was outraged.
Check the dates on the World Bank announcement linked above and the date of the Malpass statement. The announcement regarding extraordinary World Bank funding for climate change mitigation was September 7, 2022. The dateline on the report of the Malpass ambush was September 20, 2022. The Times got all bent out of shape over a choice of words but evinced no interest in what the World Bank was actually doing about global warming.
Two days later the Times ran this monument to slanted journalism. Slanted in the sense that it would have been fine as an editorial, but appeared on page 1 disguised as a news story.
Second graf: “Mr. Malpass barely spoke of global warming, careful not to rankle Mr. Trump, who famously called climate change a ‘hoax’ and pulled the United States out of the Paris climate agreement.” Barely spoke? Malpass had just spoken in depth about global warming -- spoken to the Times, which pretended this did not happen, and which did not mention Malpass put the World Bank into the Paris agreement over Trump’s opposition.
Saying “I’m not a scientist” caused, the Times went on, “an uproar” and “an international fracas.” Not merely a fracas, an international fracas! World Bank staffers were “swapping text messages.” The horror! So why isn’t one of the messages quoted? And is it somehow rare for World Bank staffers to text each other?
A critic is quoted accusing the World Bank of “pouring money into oil and gas projects” although under Malpass the World Bank stopped funding fossil fuel extraction, which readers are not told. Malpass was said by the story to have wondered aloud whether observed warming occurs naturally. Not only is this a standard concern of researchers, the reference was from 16 years ago, before today’s firm scientific consensus developed.
In November 2022, the fourth time a major-play Times article addressed the “I am not a scientist” comment, came Credibility Questions Dog World Bank President at Climate Summit. Woof woof! Who was dogging Malpass? A reporter from the Guardian. Being barked at by the Guardian is like being booked by the Keystone Kops.
The first 19 grafs of the article were snide remarks about Malpass. Then in the 20th graf the Times dryly allowed:
“The World Bank is the largest global provider of financing for climate projects, spending some $68 billion on such efforts over the past five years, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.”
So under David Malpass the World Bank was “the largest global provider of financing for climate projects.” But he’s a menace! He must be cancelled!
Three days ago the New York Times bid Malpass farewell by saying he departed the World Bank job “after failing to sufficiently demonstrate his commitment to combatting global warming.” No mention of the Paris accords action, no mention of the $68 billion, no mention that nearly all World Bank energy financing under Malpass went to renewables.
If you don’t report the good, you can make any situation seem bad – a persistent structural problem with contemporary journalism.
Coming Next: It’s Great That a Debt Ceiling Deal was Reached. But the agreement only kicked the can down the road yet again. All hard choices were indefinitely postponed – which means they will get worse.
Bonus: The Wonderful Colorado College. It taught Malpass and me well, and also Marcia McNutt, president of the National Academy of Sciences, another member of our class.
But alums were embarrassed last month when snowflakes in the graduating class turned their backs on commencement speaker Liz Cheney. Though Cheney has done more than any other person to keep Trump from returning to the Oval Office, apparently the mere fact that she’s a Republican and espouses conservative views was enough to set off the local thought police.
This seems another indication that academia, which traditionally opposes intolerance, now teaches it.
Hearing the news I did not feel bad for Cheney, who has thick skin. I felt bad for the graduates who showed closed minds and bad manners. If they take such spoiled, entitled attitudes off campus and into the real world, things won’t go well – and they will discredit the causes they hope to advance.
I still subscribe to the NYT and perhaps always will, though, at least once a week throw it against the wall.
thanks for the kind words