Sometimes the facts that need checking are pretty easy to check. That seemed to be the case with some misleading statements Paul Ryan made at a campaign stop yesterday. The New York Times set the record straight. Unfortunately their fact check was pretty much buried.
The piece (8/17/12) by Trip Gabriel—headlined “Ryan Pushes Working-Class Message in Ohio”—is all about how the Romney campaign is deploying Ryan to speak to “white working-class voters.” Gabriel notes:
Republicans are excited about the Biden-versus-Ryan showdown because of Mr. Ryan’s rhetorical skills and command of policy.
That’s funny, because down in the 8th paragraph or so, readers learn that maybe his command isn’t all that commanding:
Mr. Ryan seemed to be courting blue-collar voters here in Stark County, south of Akron, a perennial bellwether in presidential elections, when he described the loss of jobs that followed the shutdown of a General Motors plant in his hometown.
“A lot of my high school buddies worked at that GM plant,” he said. He wove the closing and loss of jobs into a critique of Mr. Obama for failing to exploit domestic energy sources and being responsible for rising gas prices.
“I remember President Obama visiting it when he was first running, saying he’ll keep that plant open,” Mr. Ryan said. “One more broken promise. We used to build Tahoes and Suburbans. One of the reasons that plant got shut down was $4 gasoline.’”
Here Gabriel steps in and, to his credit, picks it apart:
But the statement was misleading in suggesting that the plant’s closing was linked to policies of the Obama administration that affect gas prices.
Although G.M. cited slow sales of SUV’s because of high fuel costs when it closed the plant, the decision was announced in June 2008, months before Mr. Obama was elected. President George W. Bush, a Republican, was in charge of national energy policy at the time.
Obviously it’s good when papers like the Times to do this. But it’s strange that Ryan telling a bogus story about his own hometown wouldn’t get more attention. The fact check come well after readers are told that he has an impressive command of policy. A more direct version of the story can be found at Talking Points Memo, under the headline, “Paul Ryan Slams Obama for Not Saving Auto Plant That Closed Under Bush.”
Why the curious approach, then? It’s hard to say exactly, but here’s a guess: Campaign coverage tends to stick to certain narratives. There is not, at least for now, a Paul-Ryan-stretches-the-truth narrative; we’re told that he is an Eagle Scout budget wonk. So evidence to the contrary is less welcome in the corporate media.
There’s a more accurate description for Ryan’s comments than being “misleading”, isn’t there?
It’s called lying.
When you know the facts are contrary to the scenario you’re spinning …
You … are … lying.
Isn’t that what your momma told you?
And there’s really nothing “strange” about the corpress’ burial of the facts, and it’s not “hard to say” why they do so … when they do anything with them at all, aside from omitting them.
These are intelligent people. They’re not ignorant schmucks listening to Rush and O’Reilly. They know how power works in these here United States, and they’ve chosen to serve that power, while maintaining a facade of “objectivity” that occasionally obliges them to actually do their job to some minor extent.
You can argue that it’s more complex than that, and I won’t contest that, but that’s the overarching paradigm we’re dealing with, isn’t it … unless the history of mainstream media means diddley.
I remember the Maine. And Tonkin. And WMDs.
For every Pentagon Papers, how many acts of servility to the power structure can we counter with?
Pravda was primitive. Goebbels was garish.
A facade is necessary for the charade to work in a nominal “democracy”.
And so it exists.
We need to call a spade a spade.
Or we risk being buried by it.
(End screed)
They may not be “ignorant smucks”, but they are stupid ones. They honestly believe that they can tell any story, and it must be true. I have had friends who still do that; if someone else tells them that “so and so did thus and thus” then it must be from “Gods own lips to their ears”. Too bad it’s not like In “Dogma”, where such a transmission would cause the head to explode and the chest to cave in. But praying for God to save us from his followers I guess is a bit too much.
Thus they tell these stories because they must tell the story, and like the old bards, change the heroes and villains as the crowd or mood changed. Which is great if you looking for Bard at the Pub (may explain his bow skills). However if you were to actually point this out to him, that this all occured in 2008, he would simply use his deft powers of doublethink to say and believe “It’s not the actual facts that are important, only the story, since there are so many names and place that fit this story line”. That is until we point out that if he is not using facts, then he is full of it, and would then insist that it was ‘actual facts he had’, with out saying outright that the ‘facts he had’ have nothing to do with the story he is telling.
So, in short, Paul Ryan is little more than Bard, telling tales to buy his drinks and wander around without actually doing any real work.
Although the DINOs and RINOs have long been political opponents, both parties cooperatively responded in the late 1980’s to limit the threat from well-organized, competitive political parties, thus protecting their access to political power, and the associated financial powers. When the League of Women Voters organized the Presidential debates, the Ds and Rs had to share the stage and defend their agendas from a broader spectrum of political views, and meanwhile they were providing the media with comparably more avenues of inquiry. Now, however, there is a gentleman’s agreement to present familiar statements as the essential truths and obvious choices, greatly narrowing the discussions, while reducing the number of convenient opportunities for political commentary and criticism by the media. The media has lamely accepted this, understanding that thoughtful inquiries rarely changed the eventual conclusions and results, and with budget concerns to consider, why make greater, unappreciated efforts. In this environment, corruption flourishes. The campaign lies make the corruption more palatable, and easier to ignore.
I don’t think the Media “lamely accepted it”. I fully believe they actively sought out and worked hard to cause the limiting of info. They knew back in the days of Tricky Dick that if they kept the info to themselves, they didn’t have to do as much work, and so they have worked it into only having to deal with the ‘swing vote’. If you pay attention in the media puff pieces, they will even tell that, they are looking to active control the 10%-30% of the population so they can ‘predict’ the out come (read they can control the outcome) ahead of time.
So for most of the media outlets of today, they are not “victims” of the political system, they are full willing partners, bought up by the same people who bought the politicians. Maybe we should remind them of another media Darling from the 60’s with his famous quote:
When peaceful revolution is impossible, then Violent revolution becomes inevitable. JFK
So now we are back to the “it’s Bushes fault again”routine.To stupid for words.Obamas Policies have hurt damn near everything.Show me things his policies have helped.This minutia is all you can glean from the last 50 Paul Ryan speeches?Reaching a little there folks?One VP candidate says Obamas policies have hurt and contributed to high gas prices.The other(VP) says “Republicans are gonna put you all back in chains”to a black audiance.Which story does FAIR pick to disseminate under a microscope?Predictable
But, gee, Bush was at fault. And the Nincompoop is a dope and a liar. Re-read the piece.
Tim you believe the spin.How in this day n age ,when everyday brings another Obama Biden gaffe that ends with ooh we didn’t mean it,can you not see this is a big nothing story?Disseminating words to prove that what Ryan said in that small blip was the only part of the speech that mattered.That plant shut down under Obamas reign.To say he had no hand in that is not true.The gas prices that GM sited are only one of many many factors.And check Obamas votes on that subject going back before he was president.He has always been a hinderance to our national energy policy.But why argue with you.All Ryan need do is say….”of course I never said what you think i said or meant what you think i meant.Works for your team.Can’t have it both ways.
I’m sorry folks, but michael e is correct this time.
The fact is that Obama has always been president and is responsible for the entirety of, at least, the 20th and 21st century.
To criticize Obama is to criticize America and so michael e is correct in that all should join him in his contempt for America.
Glenn
You don’t see the magnitude of the disaster that was this presidency.You think I overlook Bushes failures in the same vein.I do not.I never voted for Bush.I did not like him as the president .Obama is just Bush adding a factor of 10.He is a wrecking crew on this country.
Okay, the fact is that this GM plant was announced to be closing in 2008 under Pres. Bush. The plant stopped production on Dec. 23, 2008, according to an Associated Press report, and “about 50” workers remained at the plant until May or June 2009 to complete outstanding orders.
However, Pres. Obama credits himself with saving GM using tax payer money to bail out this failing car company. So doesn’t logic dictate that Pres. Obama had a chance to retool this GM Plant with bailout money, and didn’t after he was elected president?
The announcement may have happened under Bush, but it was under Obama’s bailout policy that the doors were closed on the Janesville GM plant, and he could have saved it if he so chose to, but he didn’t. So calling Ryan a liar on this point is kinda like Clinton saying it depends on what your definition of “is” is to determine if Clinton really had sex with Monica Lewinsky.