Reject New York Times Fake News
Andy Beal Supports Mike Milken‘s Editorial
Michael Milken’s op-ed piece “No One is Safe from Biased Reporting” (The Wall Street Journal, Opinion pages, Friday, January 31) spoke of the responsibility inherent in freedom of the press and contrasted that notion against how The New York Times is “increasingly corrupted by the political views of its reporters and editorialists.” He went on to discuss how he had been the victim of “unfounded and vicious attacks by the Times.”
I was so moved, that I feel compelled to support Mr. Milken and all the others who have been negatively affected by biased, unfair, negative, and flat-out untrue “fake news” reporting by The New York Times, because I also am a victim of biased and unfair reporting by The New York Times.
Some background is in order:
• In July 2013, Beal Bank made a loan of almost $350 million on a highly efficient, latest-generation, natural gas power plant, La Paloma, in California.
• The loan performed well for years until California’s highly discriminatory and additionally subsidized mandates impaired the viability of the plant.
• The owners defaulted on the loan and filed bankruptcy, and ultimately Beal Bank was forced to take possession of the plant.
• The bank subsequently filed a complaint with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) seeking relief from California’s discriminatory market structure for all electrical generation owners operating in the state of California.
On March 29, 2019, The New York Times (NYT) wrote a virtually fabricated story headlined, “A Texan’s Big Bet on a Fossil-Fuel Venture for California. “It had such a clear, preconceived agenda that anyone who knows the truth hardly recognized the story.
The basic facts above were either buried or omitted to accomplish the desired NYT slant, favoring a more politicized story about the “purchase“of the power plant by a Trump-supporting Texan. It was only the unfair market forces created by California’s discriminatory regulations that caused the plant to go bankrupt and forced the bank to take over the plant.
Here’s what the NYT didn’t report: The major electricity generation companies (our competitors) operating in California joined our complaint. Representative quotes from the court filings in support of the complaint include:
• Calpine: “[La Paloma’s] Complaint demonstrates that there has been a systemic breakdown in California’s competitive markets resulting in unjust and unreasonable and unduly discriminatory conditions in such markets….”
• Electric Power Supply Association: “…urges the Commission to determine that the California Resource Adequacy construct is not just and reasonable and grant [La Paloma’s] Complaint.”
• NRG: “The meticulously researched [La Paloma] complaint provides the Commission with ample evidence that the existing resource adequacy framework has not provided access to just and reasonable rates for some time.”
• Cogentrix: “Consistent with the assertions set forth by [La Paloma], [Cogentrix] has experienced a regulatory process that is fragmented and compartmentalized and consistently delivers a patchwork of market rules that deliver unjust and unreasonable rates to market participants.”
• Western Power Trading Forum: “WPTF supports the Complaint and urges the Commission to promptly take appropriate remedial action.” There were many supporters from the heavily regulated California energy community. All those filings were available to find and use for a well-rounded, objective story. As Milken wrote, “Anyone with an Internet connection could easily have found the truth.”
The NYT story did not report any instance of third-party support for our complaint.
The NYT narrative became even more misleading and, in some cases, utterly untrue. Their story:
• Contains multiple references to coal, which most people view as derogatory. Notwithstanding, the bank has no exposure to coal and there are no functioning coal plants in California. The idea was simply to paint the bank as a coal supporter. The implication and negative associations • are Asserts misleading that the and bank very was different trying to from upend the California’s truth. recently enacted green-energy mandate. Nonsense. California needed, and still needs, natural gas. The state rules were unfair.
• Refers to “critics” who said the bank wanted to create a “subsidy” for fossil-fuel plants. This is false; we sought a level playing field. Removing discrimination does not create a subsidy.
• Cites former California Public Utilities Commissioner Loretta Lynch who, among other things, accused the bank of a “frontal assault,” “manufacturing a problem,” and setting up a “double economic whammy” for the state. Nothing could be further from the truth. We just wanted a level playing field.
• Asserts that if the bank were to succeed, it would be a stunning setback for California’s energy goals. This is also false. Ironically, it appears the state needs fossil fuels, as evidenced by a California utility’s subsequent multiyear contract with La Paloma.
Milken’s article mentions the NYT’s “multiyear campaign opposing virtually every initiative of the Trump administration” and mentions creating stories “virtually out of thin air.” Here too there are many parallels with the NYT story on La Paloma.
One of the most troubling parts of the NYT story was their continual reference to the “Trump connection.” Due to my support for our president, the NYT portrayed my political views as a businessperson trying to achieve an unfair advantage. To be candid, this is doubly offensive, as it contradicts my lifelong fight to get government OUT of the private business sector.
Regardless of one’s political views, the question remains: How is support for President Trump relevant to this story, especially given that the loan was originated well before President Trump even announced his candidacy?
Again, almost none of what the NYT reported was relevant to the actual story of the power plant and the FERC complaint. All the bank asked was for the FERC to enforce existing laws, not change them. The bank requested that something be looked at, using the court system to see if a situation was just. From the NYT perspective, the sexy, salacious aspect is that a “Trump backer“was supposedly trying to bend laws to its exclusive advantage rather than ask for a level playing field that would benefit competition and thus consumers. The NYT used misdirection, innuendo, alarmism, and omission of key facts to slant their story to fulfill their agenda. The FERC eventually ruled against the bank – we lost – but that is apparently not relevant enough for the NYT to retract the smear in the previously referenced story.
The NYT’s habit of attacking successful people is no longer surprising. And if you’re a Trump supporter, they’ll tar you for that. Is a citizen really a bad actor for supporting plain-speaking, “get the job done” government instead of smooth-talking, typical politicians?
In the end, we find ourselves asking questions like Mr. Milken’s: Should the American public not expect more from the NYT? Is there no longer an obligation, from an almost 170-year-old institution, to report things objectively to the people of this great nation? Have we really come to deserve false, veiled opinion pieces under the guise of news stories?
The insidious effect of intentionally incomplete and biased reporting is the erosion of objectivity and neutrality upon which citizens are able to form their own opinions. In the case of Mike Milken and Beal Bank, other news sources and online publications (not to mention social media) further spread the biased narratives on the presumption that a once-respected paper had completed its work objectively and with journalistic integrity. The unfortunate reality is that biased and incomplete news lives online forever.
What can be done? We fully agree with Mr. Milken’s assessment. We, the readers and citizens, must be vigilant about identifying biased reporting, calling it out wherever it occurs, and naming its purveyors and, above all, pushing the facts. Americans and all readers deserve better.