Brian Williams & NYT Editor Tell Viewers Bloomberg Spent $1M Per American But It Was Only $1.53


In yet another brilliant display of hard-hitting journalism from the establishment media, MSNBC’s Brian Williams and a New York Times editorial board member claimed Thursday night that 2020 Democratic presidential candidate Michael Bloomberg could have financially set up the entire U.S. population for life with just the money he spent on campaign advertising.

Unable through Super Tuesday to pull support from front-runner and former Vice President Joe Biden, Bloomberg officially withdrew from the race this week.

That was not, however, before Bloomberg spent more than $500 million of his own money on nationwide broadcast, cable, radio and digital advertising spots in a historic late-race media blitz, the billionaire and former New York mayor’s own eponymous news outlet reported.

And according to Williams, host of “The 11th Hour,” and New York Times editorial board member Mara Gay, an investment of that size could have instead been spent putting $1 million into the pockets of each and every American citizen, with millions left over in the end.

“Do you see it as a possibility, if [Bloomberg] wants to spend a billion bucks beating [President Donald Trump], he could do it?” Williams asked Gay during the broadcast.

John Mellencamp Leaves Stage During Concert After Heckler Says 'Just Play Some Music'; Audience Left Wondering if Show Will Continue

Bloomberg had previously promised in January to give the yet undetermined Democratic nominee, whomever it might be, his full financial backing going forward into the general election, The Hill reported.

“Absolutely,” Gay said. “Somebody tweeted recently that, actually, with the money he spent, he could have given every American a million dollars.”

“I’ve got it. Let’s put it up on the screen,” Williams responded, paraphrasing a tweet from author Mekita Rivas. “When I read it tonight on social media, it kind of all became clear. Bloomberg spent $500 million on ads, U.S. population 327 million — don’t tell us if you’re ahead of us on the math — he could have given $1 million and had lunch money left over.”

“It’s an incredible way of putting it,” Gay said. “It’s true. It’s disturbing. It does suggest, you know, what we’re talking about here, which is there is too much money in politics.”

The only problem with the assessment, however, was that Bloomberg could not in fact have given every American even $10 by equally distributing his advertising investment among the general population.

As simple arithmetic would have it, Bloomberg could have given every American just $1.53.

In other words, the billionaire Democratic candidate couldn’t have taken us all out for coffee with that kind of money — and the social media sphere was quick to let Williams, Gay and Rivas know it.

The mocking hashtag “MathIsHard” trended on Twitter just hours after Williams and Gay’s segment.

Cover of Greg Gutfeld's New Book Will Have 7 Liberal Hosts Melting Down: 'The King of Late Night'

Catching much of the flak, Rivas would go on to double down in light of the response, admitting she had made a mathematical error but suggesting that, with an estimated net worth of between $50 billion and $60 billion, Bloomberg could still easily do as she had initially suggested.

This claim was also widely debunked, and the author has since made her Twitter account private, adding, “I know, I’m bad at math” to her account biography.

Still, I hardly want to waste my time knocking on a B-list Glamour Magazine and Washington Post columnist.

The real blame here lies almost entirely with Williams, Gay and the left-wing establishment media industrial complex that created them and this cringe-worthy Thursday night soundbite.

Do you think this was intentionally misleading?

Awarding themselves with a hearty pat on the back as supposedly heroic “fact-checkers” in the era of “Republican misinformation,” these so-called journalists and their producers apparently could not be bothered to pull out a calculator and do simple division.

Have the media gatekeepers of Manhattan really grown so complacent in their legacies as name-brand news providers that this is the state of reporting in this country?

Or are they simply so concerned with their shrinking audience and public trust that this is the best that can be done to keep outraged progressive audiences from turning the channel?

And given the fact that we even have to ask these questions, is it really any wonder independent and alternative news sources are on the rise while establishment media figures such as Rachel Maddow lie awake at night, sweating their dwindling numbers?


But you already knew that.

Truth and Accuracy

Submit a Correction →

We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.

, , , , , , , , , , ,
Andrew J. Sciascia was the supervising editor of features at The Western Journal. Having joined up as a regular contributor of opinion in 2018, he went on to cover the Barrett confirmation and 2020 presidential election for the outlet, regularly co-hosting its video podcast, "WJ Live," as well.
Andrew J. Sciascia was the supervising editor of features at The Western Journal and regularly co-hosted the outlet's video podcast, "WJ Live."

Sciascia first joined up with The Western Journal as a regular contributor of opinion in 2018, before graduating with a degree in criminal justice and political science from the University of Massachusetts Lowell, where he served as editor-in-chief of the student newspaper and worked briefly as a political operative with the Massachusetts Republican Party.

He covered the Barrett confirmation and 2020 presidential election for The Western Journal. His work has also appeared in The Daily Caller.