Truth & Lies

Date: February 17, 2011

Author: Bob Griendling

Kudos to American Journalism Review’s Rem Reider who is the latest to say what Anderson Cooper did (a sin to the David Gregory’s of the world) is what journalism is all about, speaking truth to power. Cooper, who called some of Mubarak’s pronouncements as he tried to hold to power “lies.”

Is calling a lie a lie out of a journalist’s "purview"? Was Cooper guilty of "taking sides"?

I don’t think so.

All Cooper did was tell the truth, albeit in an unvarnished, perhaps jarring, way. As Platt would say, Cooper was the explicit adjudicator of a factual dispute. He drew conclusions from his reporting.

And there is nothing wrong with that.

For too long, mainstream journalism has pulled its punches. Admirably dedicated to fairness, balance, not picking winners and losers, it too often settled for "on the one hand, on the other hand" stories that left readers in the dark.

Clearly it’s important to be impartial, to represent many points of view, to give each side its say. But that doesn’t mean treating both sides of the argument equally when one is demonstrably false, or even deeply flawed. The world isn’t flat, no matter how many times some misguided soul might say it is.

To treat everything equally is to create a false equivalency. And that really shortchanges the readers.

The rise of the Internet, and the emergence of so much punchy point of view in the blogosphere, underscored the fact that too much journalism was too mushy, and unnecessarily so.

Amen.

A Story That Asks a Question

Date: February 17, 2011

Author: Bob Griendling

Categories: Good idea

In today’s New York Times report about the Wisconsin conflict over unions we see reporter employ a rarely used device within the story: asking a question.

But [Wisconsin Gov.] Walker has insisted that he is not singling out any group, merely searching for solutions to close a deficit of $137 million in the current state budget and the prospect of a $3.6 billion hole in the coming two-year budget. “It’s not about the unions,” Mr. Walker said in an interview. “It’s about balancing the budget.”

But why would permanently limiting collective bargaining be necessary to solve an immediate budget problem? Mr. Walker said it would bring “certainty” to the process of contract negotiations, which now often last 15 months or more.

Sometimes such questions go unasked, leaving the reader in the dark, or more important, allow the speaker to make a statement that doesn’t seem to make sense. Kudos to the Times Monica Davey and Steven Greenhouse for asking a question that would have been on the minds of many readers.

’A Breach of Trust’

Date: February 17, 2011

Author: Bob Griendling

Categories: GOP Hypocrites

The Pentagon has proposed a $5 a month increase in the health insurance premium payment for working age military retirees. A modest increase, indeed, and when you consider what they pay now–$515 A YEAR—it seems in these tough times, Republicans would think this not even worthy of discussion.

No, Defense Secretary Robert Gates was before a congressional committee yesterday defending it.

Rep. E. Scott Rigell (R-Va.) told Gates that based on his conversations with retirees, who had enlisted with the expectation that they would get free health care for life, the proposed increase was "a breach of trust to change the deal."

Not only does this Republican think that working age retirees, who are already getting a handsome pension in addition to whatever salary they’ve been able to get as a Beltway Bandit, should not pay about $43 a month for health insurance for their entire family, he calls it a “breach of trust.”

Wonder what he would say about the breach of trust going on all around the country, including Virginia, where Republican governors are asking state workers to pay into their retirement plan and, as in Wisconsin, are taking away their bargaining rights.

Isn’t that a breach of trust?

Muslim Student Union & Tea Partiers

Date: February 16, 2011

Author: Bob Griendling

Categories: Public Speaking, Racial discrimination, Tea Party

So the University of California Irvine has suspended the Muslim Student Union over its protest against the Israeli ambassador to the United States. The students tried to shout down the ambassador as he was giving a speech. There was no violence and according to a Washington Post editorial today, they all left the lecture hall peacefully.

The Post thinks their actions were “obnoxious” and “infuriating.”

And now the local D.A. wants to charge the students with “disturbing a public meeting and engaging in a conspiracy to do so.”

Imagine for a moment, what we would have heard from the right if congressmen in the summer of 2009 had asked that Tea Partiers be arrested for “disturbing a public meeting.”

Boehner’s Calculated ‘So Be It’

Date: February 16, 2011

Author: Bob Griendling

Categories: Democratic Message, Economic Policy, GOP message, Jobs

The Washington Post buried the story about Speaker Boehner’s remarks on the possible loss of federal jobs resulting from reduced spending. The story is inside the Metro section, probably because he was talking about government jobs, of which many are local. It’s a stretch but that’s the only reason I can see for its placement.

But Dana Milbank writes about the comment on the op-ed page and in it states a truth that should be part of this debate but this is the only time I’ve seen it stated.

Let’s assume that Boehner is not as heartless as his words sound. Let’s accept that he really believes, as he put it, that "if we reduce spending we’ll create a better environment for job creation in America." A more balanced budget would indeed improve the jobs market – in the long run.

But in the short run, the cuts Boehner and his caucus propose would cause a shock to the economy that would slow, if not reverse, the recovery. And however pure Boehner’s motives may be, the dirty truth is that a stall in the recovery would bring political benefits to the Republicans in the 2012 elections. It is in their political interests for unemployment to remain higher for the next two years. "So be it" is callous but rational.

The strategy is canny. First focus on discretionary spending where you can cut ideologically. Republicans are hoping to kill programs they don’t like before they tackle the real problem, entitlements. I’m sure their strategy then will be to cut entitlements for the poor and middle class while preserving them for the truly entitled.

A proven communications strategy is to accuse your opponent of something you think they will hit you with, so when they do, it seems calculated by your opponent and becomes easy to fight back against. Obama and Democrats ought now to start charging the GOP with killing jobs by cutting spending, so when it happens, you can say, “I told you so.” Because killing jobs is just what the GOP wants.

“The American People Want…”

Date: February 16, 2011

Author: Bob Griendling

Categories: Democratic Message, GOP message

How many times since the November election—and really before that—have you heard a Republican say that “the American people want” everything from smaller government, less spending, lower taxes, a reduced deficit? They say it at press conference, at congressional hearings, on the cable talk shows, and the phrase makes it into plenty of print stories.

It reinforces that Republican reputation for message discipline. They all say it. Members of the House and Senate, governors, state legislators, think tankers. They are better trained than monkeys. And if you say it often enough, American start to believe it.

Well, Democrats, at the very least learn from the best. Start saying it, but with a different ending. The fact is Americans don’t necessarily want smaller government, less spending, etc. Yes, they want smaller deficits, but you can get at that, of course, in two ways—cut spending or raise taxes.

And the fact is, Americans don’t want to cut much spending when you get down to specifics, as the Pew Research Center poll of last week revealed, not that it was much of a secret. Americans are always wanting a free lunch. (More on the Pew survey in a future post.)

But the phrase is effective because it positions the speaker as a servant of the public.

I can understand why, given the contradictory polling on this issue, some journalists don’t challenge a GOPer for saying that “the American people want.” After all, most of them are simply stenographers.

But last night,I heard a newly elected GOP senator repeat the line several times—on The Last Word on MSNBC. Why wasn’t Lawrence O’Donnell challenging him on his contention that 70 percent of American want to cut spending? It would have been easy to counter what he said by using the Pew data that shows not a single category of spending garners a majority of Americans saying they want to cut it.

So MSNBC, do your job. And Dems, do your job and repeat after me (again using the Pew survey as your source):

The American people don’t want us to cut spending on education, veterans benefits, healthcare, Medicare, crime fighting, energy and a lot more programs. They want us to keep spending the same or more in an overwhelming number of areas. It’s only the Republicans who want us to go backward with inferior schools, clog roads and expensive energy. The American people want a strong, vital America to pass down to their children. That’s what the American people want.

GOP Issues Press Release; Post’s Montgomery Provides the Megaphone

Date: February 14, 2011

Author: Bob Griendling

Categories: Lori Montgomery, Washington Post

Over the past month, there have been 13 stories written by Lori Montgomery. Some of the ledes are revealing:

One tells the reader how Obama won’t be able to overhaul the tax codes because of the tax compromise. (“Extension of tax cuts chokes Obama’s deficit plans”)

Another story complains that Obama hasn’t embraced the deficit commission plans. (“Obama not likely to call for Social Security cuts”)

She ridicules the president by calling his plans for more spending as “investments” in quotes, a writing device used to deride the use of the word. (“Everyone wants budget cuts, but will they work?”)

Meanwhile, she writes about how the GOP pledges “to slice more than $32 billion from agency budgets.” (“House Republicans propose $32 billion in budget cuts”)

Or how they “sketched their vision for a smaller government,” again by cutting programs that would make a miniscule reduction in the deficit. (“House GOP points budget knife at EPA, top Obama priorities”)

She writes about House GOP leaders are hoping to enact “massive and unprecedented cuts,” again for the portion of the budget that would be meaningless in light of the long-term deficits. (“Rift over spending cuts tests the GOP”)

But then today, when the president presents a 2012 budget with significant cuts, he is derided by Montgomery: “Obama will avoid politically dangerous recommendations to wipe out cherished tax breaks and to restrain safety-net programs for the elderly….” Sunday, she wrote that the proposal “would barely put a dent in the deficits that congressional budget analysts say could approach $12 trillion through 2021.”

Why hasn’t she written during the past month about the GOP avoiding those same cuts? It’s laudable to Montgomery that the GOP is making small cuts in programs they ideologically oppose while she gives them a free pass on the larger budget items, i.e. Social Security and Medicare. But the fact that the party has avoided the big cuts is ignored, even as Speaker Boehner said again this weekend that the party will address those issues sometime in the vague “future.”

No wonder the GOP wins the message wars. The party just issues a press release and Montgomery provides the megaphone.

Finally, Obama Adopts Family Responsibility Theme

Date: February 13, 2011

Author: Bob Griendling

Categories: Democratic Message, Economic Policy, GOP message, Obama, Taxes

I’ve argued to anyone who’ll listen that the meme Republicans have used about government having to tighten its belt “just like families do” was not only flawed, but ripe for adopting as a Democratic theme. Now, President Obama did it with his Saturday radio address.

When faced with financial challenges, families do several things. Yes, they cut back spending. But they also look to increase income. They know not everything can or should be cut across the board. Some things you can do without; others are necessary to succeed in the long run. So, like the family alluded to in Obama’s speech where the mother is looking for a second job because they want their child to finish college, families do what’s necessary to pay for the things they think are important. The president uses this narrative to turn the tables on the disingenuous GOP narrative and argues the federal government shouldn’t cut everything. Some investments must be made because if we don’t, we’ll put our kids at a disadvantage to compete in the future. They won’t have the education or the infrastructure to compete. They’ll be more dependent on foreign oil than ever before with an antiquated transportation system that will choke economic growth. All because we want to cut taxes and slice not only muscle but bone from the our governments.

Text of speech is here. Video below.

Who You Calling Liars?

Date: February 10, 2011

Author: Bob Griendling

Categories: Fact-based journalism

All the more reason we need journalists who fact check.

Politick calls Republicans liars at three times the rate they call Democrats liars. Naturally, someone has a problem with that. In this case, Eric Ostermeier, a researcher at the University of Minnesota and author of the Smart Politics blog.

Politick, the high profile political fact-checking operation at the St. Petersburg Times, has been criticized by those on the right from time to time for alleged bias in its grading of statements made by political figures and organizations.

Ostermeier questions how Politick determines which statements get evaluated, suggesting the website authors seek out more damaging GOP statements than Democratic ones. He notes that the site evaluates as many GOP statements as Democratic ones, but that’s not good enough. Apparently he wants some kind of algorithm to prove they are being fair.

Whatever. Best part of this confusing post is this quote from Politifact editor Bill Adair:

"The media in general has shied away from fact checking to a large extent because of fears that we’d be called biased, and also because I think it’s hard journalism. It’s a lot easier to give the on-the-one-hand, on-the-other-hand kind of journalism and leave it to readers to sort it out. But that isn’t good enough these days. The information age has made things so chaotic, I think it’s our obligation in the mainstream media to help people sort out what’s true and what’s not."

Amen.

h/t Political Wire