Pundit David Brooks thinks the way to fix American democracy is by having less democracy. Let elites dictate policy and have pundits cheer them on!
Veteran CBS anchor Bob Schieffer slams the influence of big money in politics. But when he says he wants more bipartisanship, what does he really mean?
Pundits were mad about the news that Barack Obama was backing away from "chained CPI" Social Security cuts. An announcement about troop cuts caused some reporters to panic. And Arizona's discriminatory SB 1062 is given the "some say" media treatment.
Media comments after the Obama administration backed off attempts to cut Social Security benefits exhibited a curious notion about where the "middle" is and what "majority support" means.
After reporting that "the government has trouble determining exactly which Americans are deceased," the Washington Post notes, almost as an afterthought, that the "vast majority" of deaths are recorded without incident.
60 Minutes was so excited to hear that its report made their audience eager to inform on their neighbors and family members, it sounded like the viewer's mailbag at the end of an East German TV news show.
CBS should have tried to settle whether there's any actual evidence that widespread cheating of the disability program is going on. CBS was either uninterested in that, or decided that its stacked panel of talking heads provided the answer they wanted to hear.
"Some Democrats Look to Push Party Away From Center," read the headline at the New York Times. But the "center" doesn't actually mean what one might think it means–especially in the context of the political views of the American public.
The "center" doesn't usually indicate where most of the public is, but rather where elites have determined an appropriate middle between opposing arguments.
Decrying "the ability of well-funded extremist groups to thwart the will of the overwhelming majority," Time's Joe Klein cites defenders of Social Security–who, of course, are trying to thwart the will of an overwhelming minority.
Covering the media's rush to misjudgment on the Boston Marathon attack, which acts of terrorism are called "terrorism," and PBS's "debate" over Social Security–in which both sides call Obama "brave" for trying to cut benefits.
On the PBS NewsHour (4/12/13), the left/right debating duo of Mark Shields and David Brooks took up the issue of Social Security and "chained CPI"–and found that they didn't have a lot to debate on the virtues of Barack Obama's benefits-cutting plan.
"Today there's an elephant in the room: a huge, yet ignored, issue that largely explains why Social Security is now on the chopping block…. That problem is U.S. militarism and perpetual war."