Paul Krugman writes today (New York Times, 7/16/12) on media’s failure to factcheck campaign claims:
Perhaps in a better world we could count on the news media to sort through the conflicting claims. In this world, however, most voters get their news from short snippets on TV, which almost never contain substantive policy analysis. The print media do offer analysis pieces—but these pieces, out of a desire to seem “balanced,” all too often simply repeat the he-said-she-said of political speeches.
Paul Krugman
Trust me: you will see very few news analyses saying that Mr. Romney proposes huge tax cuts for the rich, with no plausible offset other than big benefit cuts for everyone else—even though this is the simple truth. Instead, you will see pieces reporting that “Democrats say” that this is what Mr. Romney proposes, matched with dueling quotes from Republican sources.
Indeed, the best example of this was an issue we flagged here last week: Whether Barack Obama’s call for extending the Bush tax cuts only on income up to $250,000 represented a big tax hike for small businesses. According to reality, it does not. But Republicans say that it does, and they say it often. So it becomes one “side” in the debate.
Interestingly, after a few days of this, the Times ran a piece on Saturday (7/14/12) that seemed like it was supposed to factcheck these claims. But, like many other attempts, it failed to clarify the issue for readers, more or less concluding that everyone had a point.
Times reporter Trip Gabriel writes:
Mr. Obama is correct that only a tiny sliver of business owners make enough to land in the top tax brackets. The Joint Committee on Taxation, a nonpartisan Congressional office, estimated last month that 3.5 percent of taxpayers with business income in 2013 would fall in the tax brackets that would rise under the president’s proposal.
So this is settled, right? A tax increase that doesn’t even affect 97 percent of “small businesses” can’t really be criticized as an attack on small business owners, can it? Hold on a second:
But the tax committee also supported Mr. Romney’s assertion that this sliver represents a significant share of the economy: Those top earners generate 53 percent of all small-business income.
It’s hard to see what that “supports” exactly—other than the idea that people in the top tax bracket are wealthy. Indeed, the next several paragraphs go on to explain how the definition of “small business” gets a little fuzzy; some counts (like Romney’s) apparently count “flow-through” businesses, which can include hedge funds and the like. (Goldman Sachs, until 1999, was in this category of “small businesses,” Gabriel points out.)
What about the idea that this small increase in the top marginal tax rate will destroy jobs? Here, too, the Times finds a way to suggest everyone maybe has a point.
But the question of whether small-business owners are encouraged or deterred by marginal tax rates is robustly debated by economists.
The evidence? Former Bush economic adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin says a business owner that has $80 instead of $100 is less likely to hire. It’s hard to know how that relates to the current tax debate. The other side is William Gale of the Tax Policy Center, who notes that business can “deduct wages from their revenues… with the potential to lower their effective tax rate.”
And, the Times says, “recent studies have challenged the notion that small businesses are a key engine of job creation.”
If the point of such a story is to settle a key election season dispute, it fails. If the point is to muddy up the water enough to allow both sides to keep saying the same things, no matter what the facts say—it does the job perfectly.
This is the classic way that reporters hide behind the notion of objectivity to avoid upsetting key sources in both major parties. Objectivity has come to mean he said-she said reporting and the facts be damned.
And, the Times says, “recent studies have challenged the notion that small businesses are a key engine of job creation.”
Ah!? Really?? Well you know you can’t argue with the mini-true, and if ever there was such a thing a mini-true, this would be the people; as opposed to them and the whole truth, they always present a mini-true, whether it has relevance or not.
I still surprised at the number of people who do not realize the horse race being reported in the news. As pointed by FAIR and KPFA for years it’s not even about the ‘issues’ it’s about who is ahead in the polls, according to which media is reporting. The sound bites are shorter than a higg-boson particle life span, and is major duck-speak to boot.
This goes all the way back to the days of Ronnie Ray-gun and the ‘Oh I don’t think so’ way of handling anything that didn’t fit a preconceived notion.
Both major political parties have degenerated into political action committees for the 0.1%, and the New York Times has become a major source of he-said-she-said yellow (in more ways than one) journalism. Again and again, NYT editorials express disdain for the very lies its reporters have characterized as the truth.
The Romney campaign currently consists of almost nothing but obvious lies and statistical distortions that President Obama has made no serious effort to refute. Instead of leading, he just keeps on following along, evidently mesmerized by his own speaking skill (which some might question), and invariably passing the initiative over to his opponents as if it were a hot potato.
The extent to which the United States has degenerated into a vicious plutocracy is far greater than what most of the postings and comments here would lead anyone to believe.
@ John Q: I absolutely agree with you. There are however a few of us independent thinkers who are not apologists for the DP. As for FAIR, it has always defended the DP as if they are the champions of virtue. Occasionally they throw in a mild criticism to give the impression of FAIR-ness! The problem with this country is not the .1% who have always been greedy in history. The problem is not with the Republicans either who are either feeble-minded or wannabes. The problem is with those who know better but continue to apologize for the DP.
@ FreeSpirit: You are probably right in essence. There would not be enough ignorant fools to provide the Republican Party with the following it’s insane policies appear to have today were it not for the incompetence of the Democratic Party. But since the liberal press no longer exists, how can FAIR go after the DP?
Peter & Paul, One thing that is never mentioned by people discussing these tax cuts, especially Obama, is that they do not apply to people who earn over $250K or businesses that earn over $250K they apply to people who show over $250K after taking all of their deductions! This means after all tax loopholes and legitimate deductions have been taken. So really, these are people who typically earn (Gross) much more than $250K. People are fooled by this into thinking that if they merely earn $250K they will pay higher taxes… Why doesn’t anyone ever point this out…
I would suggest that the NY Times and the other big media outlets feel like they have to legitimize a completely illegitimate process. Even when the facts are correct, the logic and relevance is missing. The real tragic course we are on is never hinted at, nor real policy answers suggested. The other way they try to legitimize the process is bringing up “news” or spin favoring one candidate or the other to keep the race “close.” That way, after the election neither party has any claim to a mandate, and legitimate critics are silenced because it appears that you have half the voting public favoring the opposite of the other half. good way to create gridlock and make the government the laughing stock of the world.
Most of today’s “journalists” for major media outlets such as the NY Times … or really any other big money making outfit .. are not real journalists anymore. They’re part of the sales staff! Their job is to sell the product. For the most part, they’re every bit of a corporate lackey as anybody else responsible for selling a multi million dollar product. And as such … most of them tend to lean toward the right.(They’d better if they’d like to keep their job.) There are exceptions to this rule of course.
So it’s in their interest to make the contest seem like a contest. This is why the media doesn’t call Romney out on everything, or expose his game the way they should be. If they did … soon they wouldn’t have anything to report on (because it would basically be over) and sales would suffer. They also must have their hands in there manipulating the polls somehow. They must be limiting the sample size or some other trick. I’m convinced that Romney is nowhere near as close as he’s being shown in the polls. Either that or America is collectively the dumbest group of people on Earth. (A possibility!)
Now, why doesn’t the Democratic party take it upon themselves to do a better job of communicating the truth to the country, and just just throw a mercy killing on the Romney campaign for crying out loud!? I have no idea. It seems to me that it would be pretty easy to do, because Romney doesn’t have a factual leg under his platform! It’s easy for anybody who takes some time and some common sense to see that almost everything Romney says is a fabrication! And he’s an arrogant pompous ass as well! It’s a mystery to me why the Dem party hasn’t just shut the door on him yet. Are they THAT inept at what they do for a living? I don’t think so! They must also have some kind of reason for wanting the general public to believe that it’s actually a close race. I can’t figure it out.
Bottom line: The game is fixed folks. It’s kind of like pro wrestling. Even if the facts were reversed and Obama was telling nothing but lies, the media would be sure not to expose too many of them. (Just enough to keep their guy slightly ahead.) Their job is to have everyone believe that the 2 of them are in a real contest no matter how big the talent gap.
That’s what today’s big league”journalists” do for a living. Real journalists with integrity are few and far between. And honestly that’s quite a shame. That’s no good for our country. Thank goodness for the blogsphere giving us somepalce to go so we can inject a little bit of reality into our info stream !
Reporters, predominantly TS, for m a cult of personality and pc dress code. Wolf’s beard is neatly trimmed and all the women are shapely and have full toothy smiles. They rarely interview to hear the comments of the interviewee, rather paraphrase and then ‘correct’ the interviewee if he/she doesn’t acknowledge the anchor’s sound bite. And, breaking news can go on all day with each additional witness appearing to comment on the events that occured this morning. Its sad. Where is Walter?
I hold the belief that the way it is, is exactly the way the fat cats want it to be. They have hired puppets to report the news. If it isn’t written for them, then it doesn’t get reported. The days of investigative journalism are dead and gone. This is the result of corporate controled news groups.
If a reporter writes anything affecting politics that appears to be definitive, he and his bosses are going to get hit with charges of bias by someone with an interest in another outcome. All “sides” do it, Republicans, Democrats, LaRouchies, the NRA, vegetarians, you name it. The game is called “Prove It” and here’s the problem: proof of a seemingly factual statement is almost impossible to achieve.
In law, proof is accepted from the preponderance of evidence (in a civil trial) or from evidence that is persuasive beyond a reasonable doubt (in criminal cases.) If either of those standards were used to judge news stories, readers would benefit from much more clarity. Instead, complaints, threats of boycotts and nervous corporate owners have effectively required journalists to achieve scientific proof. That is, proof to the exclusion of all other possibilities. That’s very difficult in science (“the theory of evolution,” “the Big Bang theory“) and, by definition, essentially impossible in political reporting.
Reporters, editors and news media owners need to declare their own standard of proof and stick to it. “Beyond a reasonable doubt” works. If it’s good enough to send someone to the gas chamber, it should be good enough for a daily news story.
Again we find ourselves in contention over that bit of cash that will solve …….absolutely nothing!Will it kill the top people to pay a bit more?…Nope.Will it help anything?No probably not,and there are good stats that indicate tax cuts bring money into the general pool.The number has been generated that if Obama got 100% of his tax wish list …it would pay for little.Food stamps and a few other things.It would not solve or make a dent in any of our problems.This is about class warfare for political gain.That strange word “Fairness” keeps cropping up on the left.What is everyones fair share?I suppose according to them the bottom 50% is fair when it pays nothing. Today the top tier pays 87% of the total.So what is fair?Should the top earners pay 97%? 100%?All this as I say is academic.Only one thing will save us now.Generation, and creation of new wealth.If you believe raising taxes on certain factions of our populace will accomplish that than lets talk.If you just want to eliminate the rich and the well to do ,and those aspiring to that,I would ask you to go find another country to ply your socialist trade.That is not America.
Dan says: The days of investigative journalism are dead and gone.
Actually, they’ve been dead and gone ever since the first aristocrat/autocrat/plutocrat got hold of a printing press I think. Edward R. Murrow struggled with the same corporate controled [sic] news groups Dan refers to. The movie “Good Night and Good Luck” amply demonstrated this.
Dan is correct about why our press is the way it is. But we should hesitate to believe that the press has ever been fair, particularly the mainstream press. Even competition between numerous papers in big cities was no different than the competition between numerous automobile manufacturers today. The bottom line is profit and the culture is endless consolidation and elimination of choice and expression.
I sometimes wish I could lie so blatantly and get away with it being reported as one side of a debate, but I guess lies in the service of power function a little differently in the news media…
m.e., those are some of the most witless talking points around. Keep diggin’.
FreeSpirit, you wrote this: “As for FAIR, it has always defended the DP as if they are the champions of virtue. ” That’s false. The “champions of virtue”? Really? I’ve been reading FAIR for years, and I can say that you don’t what you’re talking about.
Like the trolls, you think that FAIR’s always roughing up the Republicons and they overlook (The Virtuous!) the Dems. The sad fact is, the Republicons have gone completely off the rails–they’ll pretty much say and do anything to forward their freight, and have a stunning collection of liars, freaks and dummies who are given unwarranted fair treatment in the “mainstream” press (Michele Bachmann and Sarah Palin, among many others, come immediately to mind). That there are so many lying, stuipid, avaricious or evil right-wing miscreants about means tracking these targets is a full time job. So, the ‘Cons do indeed come in for more scrutiny, only because there are so many of them–they’re a dime a dozen. A real bummer.
Tim Im scared to ask.But what do you see as the “way up” for this country?Since we on the right have left the rails.And those on the left have lost the way……
Free Spirit you only claim but no proof is given that FAIR has ever defended the Democrats for any reason other than the truth. That is all they are interested in, not partisanship. So until you get some proof we can check you are just doing what the corporate press does only they do it on a larger scale with cooked sources if they care to at all. “Liberal Press” is the bugaboo that the hardliner Reich wingers have been trying to scare us with for years. No such thing. There might have been some who actually fought the power but no more. We still have outlets that could be called Liberal. But that is beside the point that you are deflecting from. The truth needs to be told without politics and partisanship getting in the way. FAIR is one of those few places. Democracy Now is another.