The Press and Social Security – Why they continue to get it wrong, and what they can do to get it right

Most of us out here in the liberal blogosphere must feel like we’ve been pissing into the wind when it comes to discussing Social Security. I know I do. No matter how many times we insist that Social Security is not welfare (“entitlement”), that it does not add on dime to the deficit, and is not in any immediate danger of going belly up, the mainstream media ignores the truth and repeats the lie that Social Security is in crisis. It is, quite truthfully, baffling to me. The actuarial reports are there for all to see. Minor fixes would fix any long term (and by that I mean decades away) shortfalls, and yet, they persist. Why?

This  Columbia Journalism Review interview with Tim Greider discusses the abysmal reporting the press has done on Social Security by first discussing what and why the media gets it wrong and then moves on to what the press needs to be doing going forward.

TL: Let’s go back and put all this in the context of the press coverage of Social Security. What should the press be reporting that they haven’t been?

WG: Opponents of Social Security are deliberately confusing Social Security with Medicare; they are distorting reality. There are simple facts that should be reported: 1) Social Security never contributed a dime to the deficit; 2) Social Security softened the impact of the Reagan deficits by building up a surplus; 3) the federal government borrowed the money and spent it on other things; 4) the federal government has to pay this money back because it really belongs to the working people who paid their FICA deductions every pay day. The elites in both parties know the day is approaching when the federal government has to come up with the trillions it borrowed from the workers. That is the crisis the politicians don’t want to deal with, so they create a phony argument that slyly blames working people for their problem. That’s the propaganda they want the public to believe.

[ . . . ]

TL: Who is representing the public in this debate?

WG: The same people who rallied the public against Social Security privatization in the Bush administration. They have organized again. Some are the same players. Labor is on the barricades. Some righteous members of Congress. But in general the mass media don’t go to those dissenting voices. Instead, they are reporting factual errors as correct opinion.

TL: What do you want the press to do?

WG: I am daring reporters to go and find out the truth about this and report it. I’m not asking them to draw big conclusions or to assert their opinions. Just be honest reporters. It’s so frustrating to see the coverage. I’m not asking reporters to change any minds. I’m just asking them to do some real reporting. I mean, go to the facts—the actuarial records—and talk to a variety of experts. Reporters ring up the same sources and ask them how to think about Social Security.

TL: What does the public understand about what is happening?

WG: Not everyone understands what is happening. But most do. Most people know they have paid money into Social Security all these years and the money belongs to them, not the federal government. This is not welfare. It’s probably the best-understood program in the federal government. In fact, polls indicate in these troubled times the public believes people need increased benefits.

TL: Why hasn’t the press talked about Social Security as social insurance?

WG: My guess is that very few reporters understand what it is, or know that the concept of social insurance originated as a conservative idea—conserving social solidarity. It was first proposed more than one hundred years ago in Germany by Bismarck—not exactly a left-winger. Today’s critics style it as an entitlement program, and therefore reporters think that it’s like welfare. It’s not something the government gives to greedy old people. Alan Simpson has been relentless on this point. The press has picked up on Simpson’s language and made it sound like it’s a hand-out.

TL: A recent Bloomberg poll shows that two-thirds of those polled think the program should be means-tested. Has the press explained what that means?

WG: Social Security is by far the government’s most popular program precisely because it is universal. Everyone pays in; everyone is protected against catastrophe. The danger in means testing is that it really may turn Social Security into a welfare program—alms for the poor—and eventually doom it by destroying the broad political support it enjoys. That’s another aspect for debate the media has glossed over.

TL: Does Bismarck’s notion of social solidarity resonate in this country?

WG: The idea of social solidarity represents the core of our society. The belief that we’re all in this together has been trampled over in the last thirty years by conservative ideology. Good citizens and politicians have been sucked into believing that solidarity is not the issue. Until Americans rediscover the importance of solidarity, we’re going to be screwed up as a society. We will be trapped in brutal class conflicts and arguments over who gets more, who must be thrown over the side in the interest of business efficiency. I believe deeply most Americans do not want this dog-eat-dog brutality, but do not see much chance of changing it.

Via Crooks and Liars (H/T Gaius)

Our adoring media

This cartoon says it all!

(H/T boldandbald at Autographed Letter Signed)

This really needs to stop

It really does. If anyone has proven herself to be a team player, it is Hillary Clinton. She hasn’t even been officially nominated, much less spent one day at the State Department, and she’s already being labeled a backstabber. 

But world leaders who are impressed at her high profile may also wonder whether she speaks for Obama, said one former Clinton foreign policy official, who spoke on condition of anonymity when assessing her aptitude for the diplomatic post.

The leaders may look at her and wonder: “If she’s a person with her own trajectory, how loyal can she be?” the official said.

I’ve heard others, at work and within in my own family even, assert that Hillary is some sort of power seeker and that she is apparently unable to share it (despite all evidence to the contrary). Regardless of what the bloviators of the MSM, Air America, the progressive blogosphere and right-wing talk may spew, Hillary is loyal and a dedicated public servant who has worked for 35 years to better the lives of Americans and people across the globe.

And, pray tell, who is this “anonymous” former Clinton foreign policy official? Why are these wankers so eager to dish dirt to the press and never willing to put their face to their assertions? When I read what these anonymous sources have to say about Hillary’s apparently ruthless ambition my first thought is always, “Projection!!” Hillary has always stood by her words. Anonymous apparently can’t stand by his. Why? He (or she) is covering his ass. He wants to stay in the circles of power, employed, and on the speed dial of every media hack in DC (or Chicago…in this case), ready to lob whatever grenade du jour the reporter needs.

That Hillary has had the nerve to actually insist on autonomy, the abilty to hire her own staff, and to request that those within Obama’s campaign who were the most disparaging of her not be inserted into the department she will be tapped to run, is declared “ruthlessness” by these obsequious syncophants is just so much bullshit. 

The advisers who helped trash the former First Lady’s foreign policy credentials on the campaign trail are being brutally shunted aside, as the price of her accepting the job of being the public face of America to the world. In negotiations with Mr Obama this week before agreeing to take the job, she demanded and received assurances that she alone should appoint staff to the State Department. She also got assurances that she will have direct access to the President and will not have to go through his foreign policy advisers on the National Security Council, which is where many of her critics in the Obama team are expected to end up.

I’d call this pretty damned smart, and exactly what I’d expect from anyone tapped to serve in the cabinet.  The individual jobs are hard enough without having to look over your shoulder all the time or run a gauntlet just to get to speak to your supervisor (the Pres). The cabinet is supposed to be the President’s circle of advisors, not a rubber stamp. Have we not see enough of that over the past eight years?

All this handwringing that Hillary will work to undermine Obama, rather than push forward for the betterment of the country and the world, has no basis in fact. Her tireless campaigning for Obama, much to the disappointment of many in the PUMA blogosphere, is a testament to her commitment to keeping her word and her loyalty. The selection of Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State actually does give me hope, and not the Hopey-Changey crap of the campaign. It shows me that Obama may actually have the best interests of the country and the world at heart.  Time will tell.  But in this selection he’s chosen the person who has stood by her word, negotiated firmly, and is loyal. I can’t think of better qualities for SoS. 

As I commented on another blog, who would you rather tap to be your SoS?

• The man who swore during the primary that he would not endorse a candidate, and in fact sat and watched the Super Bowl with the spouse of one of the candidates and flat out lied to said spouse’ face that he would not endorse, only to come out a few days later and endorse that spouse’s opponent.
• The woman who went the distance in one of the toughest primary races in recent history, but who, when it was all said and done, kept her word to campaign for the party’s nominee, stepped up and tirelessly campaigned on said nominee’s behalf, earlier and with greater fervor than any other presidential primary contender in history.

So, enough already.

Now that the damage has been done…

MSNBC Takes Incendiary Hosts From Anchor Seat (NYT)

From the article:

Executives at the channel’s parent company, NBC Universal, had high hopes for MSNBC’s coverage of the political conventions. Instead, the coverage frequently descended into on-air squabbles between the anchors, embarrassing some workers at NBC’s news division, and quite possibly alienating viewers. Although MSNBC nearly doubled its total audience compared with the 2004 conventions, its competitive position did not improve, as it remained in last place among the broadcast and cable news networks. In prime time, the channel averaged 2.2 million viewers during the Democratic convention and 1.7 million viewers during the Republican convention.

Hey, it wasn’t just the convention coverage that’s been alienating viewers. I stopped watching months ago when KO’s general misogyny and as well as his seething hatred for Hillary Clinton could not be ignored.

In January, Mr. Olbermann and Mr. Matthews, the host of “Hardball,” began co-anchoring primary night coverage, drawing an audience that enjoyed the pair’s “SportsCenter”-style show. While some critics argued that the assignment was akin to having the Fox News commentator Bill O’Reilly anchor on election night — something that has never happened — MSNBC insisted that Mr. Olbermann knew the difference between news and commentary.

But in the past two weeks, that line has been blurred.

In the last TWO weeks??? Are you effen’ kidding me?

garychapelhill at The Confluence, as well as many others, are covering this story and riverdaughter drops this theory in the comments section:

So much for Obama as the media darling. Now that the Republicans have gotten Clinton out of the way, they can start to dismantle the operation that put Obama in the top spot. Brokaw and Williams aren’t in Obama’s pocket and are much more likely to be objective in their reporting of Obama. So, when the GOP start nailing him in debate, it may actually get covered like Obama is getting nailed in debate. Things will return to normal with the GOP calling the shots.
Well, that didn’t take long.

A-yep.

Journalism 101

I took a journalism class way back when, and one of the first things we learned was how to properly source one’s material.  We were told that original sources are the gold standard, and the further removed your source material was from the original source, the less reliable it is.  It was always best, we were told, to go to the original witness or document for source material.  Furthermore, leaving out key parts of a document, just to further an ideological point of view reduces a journalist’s credibility, so Don’t Do It.

One of the things that I’ve always liked to do is research.  Good thing because, sadly, this election season especially has taught me to no longer believe Any Person that tells me What Someone Else Did. I’ve learned that many of these sometimes well-meaning, sometimes malevolent messengers are either relying on what someone else told them, or are seeing an event through their own filter, or are using a snippet to cast the subject of their “Omigod!!!! Did you hear????” message in the worst possible light. So, I’ve learned to withhold judgment until I can do my best to verify the veracity of the story. I want to be sure I’m seeing the whole picture and that I’m not being strung along by someone with an axe to grind. I don’t always succeed, but I do try. More often than not I will try to get to the original video, transcript or article to confirm the assertion. But many people are not like me and they depend on journalists to give them the straight skinny. They most especially count on “name” journalists to play it straight. Unfortunately, those kinds of journalists are in short supply these days. They’d rather stick with the story arc than cast a skeptical eye on the latest meme.

Speaking of whiplash

I’ve got a case of it myself, but not over Barack Obama. I had Barack’s number months ago. My whiplash is over Bob Herbert, just one among many of Barack’s apologists in the media.

Bob Herbert is having a change of heart.

But Senator Obama is not just tacking gently toward the center. He’s lurching right when it suits him, and he’s zigging with the kind of reckless abandon that’s guaranteed to cause disillusion, if not whiplash.

So there he was in Zanesville, Ohio, pandering to evangelicals by promising not just to maintain the Bush program of investing taxpayer dollars in religious-based initiatives, but to expand it. Separation of church and state? Forget about it.

And there he was, in the midst of an election campaign in which the makeup of the Supreme Court is as important as it has ever been, agreeing with Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas that the death penalty could be imposed for crimes other than murder. What was the man thinking?

[...]

“What’s he doing?” is the most common question heard recently from Obama supporters.

For one thing, he’s taking his base for granted, apparently believing that such stalwart supporters as blacks, progressives and pumped-up younger voters will be with him no matter what.

[...]

Mr. Obama is betting that in the long run none of this will matter, that the most important thing is winning the White House, that his staunchest supporters (horrified at the very idea of a President McCain) will be there when he needs them.

He seems to believe that his shifts and twists and clever panders — as opposed to bold, principled leadership on important matters — will entice large numbers of independent and conservative voters to climb off the fence and run into his yard.

Maybe. But that’s a very dangerous game for a man who first turned voters on by presenting himself as someone who was different, who wouldn’t engage in the terminal emptiness of politics as usual.

What’s up with Google News?

I was scanning my iGoogle page and saw this:

Wow! Obama raised $55 million dollars? Really? Now? With $4/gal gasoline?

I found it hard to believe, but I clicked on the link anyway and it took me to this LA Times story dated March 7, 2008. What the hell? And the link isn’t just in my iGoogle Top Stories, it’s also on the regular Google Top News page. As you can see, all the other headlines are current. So why is this months-old story linked at Google? Trying to make it look like Obama is as unstoppable as ever? Is Google playing with our heads?

Greenwald “KO”

Gawd, I used to love me some Keith Olbermann. His rants against GWB and all things neocon sent my heart aflutter. But I started to notice a misongynistic streak in Olbermann. For all his protestations that his producers were forcing him to cover Paris, Lindsay and Britney, he seemed to get an inordinate amount of sexist pleasure in putting them down. It got tiring, but still I tuned in for the early part of the program when I hoped for some meat.  But eventually, I gave up on Countdown when Keith’s drooling over Obama and unadulterated hatred of all things Hillary got to be too much. So I’ve had the fortune of missing his Hillary “special comments” and the latest in backflips he’s done over Obama. I have followed his misadventures from reports in the blogosphere.

Glenn Greewald takes on Keith Olbermann and Jonathan Alter over their coverage of Obama’s support of the new FISA law. KO cannot find a thing wrong with his Obama-messiah, and he and Alter go out of their way to tell us all how Obama is justified in his stance. Greenwald asks:

What’s much more notable is Olbermann’s full-scale reversal on how he talks about these measures now that Obama — rather than George Bush — supports them. On an almost nightly basis, Olbermann mocks Congressional Democrats as being weak and complicit for failing to stand up to Bush lawbreaking; now that Obama does it, it’s proof that Obama won’t “cower.” Grave warning on Olbermann’s show that telecom amnesty and FISA revisions were hallmarks of Bush Fascism instantaneously transformed into a celebration that Obama, by supporting the same things, was leading a courageous, centrist crusade in defense of our Constitution.

Is that really what anyone wants — transferring blind devotion from George Bush to Barack Obama? Are we hoping for a Fox News for Obama, that glorifies everything he says and whitewashes everything he does?

[...]

Those who think that Barack Obama should not be criticized no matter how wrong he is — or those who justify anything that he does no matter how craven and unjustifiable, including things that they viciously criticized when done by Dick Cheney or Harry Reid — are no different, and no better, than those who treated George Bush with similar uncritical reverence in 2003 and 2004.

J Cifre at Savage Politics takes it a step further. Speaking of The Leadership Principle, he writes:

The Leadership Principle (Führerprinzip) was made famous (or infamous) to modern history thanks to Adolph Hitler and his cabal, eventhough it had been a part of world history from time immemorial. It’s basic premise is, that only in a society in which the political leader is loved, trusted, followed, honored and respected, will a society follow the ‘mystic order’ of our species and thus true order will be then established. In it’s political ramifications, it clearly denotes that laying all the responsibility in one leader, throughout the process of making and executing all political decisions, will thus shift the responsibility and consequences of said actions to HIS/HER hands and not on the citizenry as a whole. It is almost a type of ‘political laziness’, in which the populace is allowed to ’sit back’ and allow their leader to decide everything for them. This concept also carries the innevitable assumption that the leader is ‘dignified’, ’selfless’ and ‘all knowing’, since there would simply be no other logical justification to follow his lead anywhere.

[...]

Similar to the many unscrupulous religious leaders that have plagued our past, many of these dictators actively cultivate the cult of THEIR personality, as Stalin, Mao, Fidel, and countless others have already done in the past. Their motivations may have arguably been varied in each particular case, but the results have always been the same; SUBMISSION OF THE INDIVIDUAL TO THE WILL OF THE LEADER AND HIS STATE. The common citizen is thus enjoined to follow the politician with his eyes closed, no matter what lies ahead. Reason, is thus ‘disconnected’ and vilified. Independent thinking, is labeled as ‘dishonor’ and/or ‘disloyalty’ to the leader. Active protest, is categorized as ‘treason’ and/or ‘criminal’. After all, these individuals are our Fathers (or Mothers!), and who is better than our parents to teach ‘us children’ what is right, even if it goes against our own laurels?

In an almost primitive emulation of the most unwholesome religious traditions, these leaders can later on ‘change their minds’, ‘modify revelation’, ‘alter instruction’, and even violate their own rules, but ONLY after the leader that we “love and trust” decides to do so (he knows best). Would he/she really do anything contrary to our best interests? Isn’t the whim of the leader our collective will?

In the same way, he/she can change his/her mind for us, and we will thus justify it by whichever means made available to us. Independence is in this way murdered and the emergence of a political slave is born. Out of the ashes of convenience, this pathetic excuse for a homo-sapiens is reborn into the hand of his master, twitching with brainless devotion and respect.

ABC is now The National Enquirer

Jeezuz on a triscuit. Glad their crack investigative unit was on this story. And this is news? In what way?

(walking away, shaking head and muttering)

Smear Tactics

I’ve been very disturbed by a trend I’ve been observing during this election cycle: the willingness of the left-wing blogosphere to hang its collective hat on every negative word about Hillary Clinton in the MSM. The same MSM that said left-wing bloggers here-to-fore took great pride in challenging, dissecting and fact-checking. Nowadays? Not so much. One of the many untruths that they have seized upon is the scurrilous notion that Hillary eiher has not sufficiently denied the email smears regarding Barack Obama’s religion (the relatively gentle view) or, in the extreme view, is using it to benefit her candidacy. Both ideas are completely wrong, but typical of what I am reading in the pro-Obama blogosphere. Some writers have taken this on.

From today’s Daily Howler (emphasis mine):

KILLERS AND SMEARS: What should Hillary Clinton have said when Steve Kroft asked her—three separate times!—to state her view about Obama’s religion? We can’t give a perfect answer to that. (We have written many times about the interpretive problems involved in “The Cult of the Offhand Comment.”) But we strongly recommend Brother Boehlert’s post about the way this matter has been reported. [Media Matters] And we’ll recommend that you think for a moment about the third answer Clinton gave:

CLINTON (3/2/08): Look, I have been the target of so many ridiculous rumors. I have a great deal of sympathy for anybody who gets, you know, smeared with the kind of rumors that go on all the time.

That was Clinton, discussing Obama. In that statement, Clinton correctly described these attacks on Obama as a “smear.” The next day, she repeated that language. We will offer three observations about her use of “smear.”

The world’s leading expert: Clinton is surely one of the world’s leading experts on “ridiculous rumors” and “smears.” She has been endlessly smeared in the past; fellows like Kroft never seemed to be bothered. In August 1999, for example, Hardball let Gennifer Flowers spend a half-hour accusing Clinton of serial murders. (At the time, Clinton was first lady.) Result? Flowers’ performance was so outrageous, she quickly got a full hour on Hannity & Colmes, where she repeated her inexcusable claims—and threw in the bonus claim that Clinton was a big giant lesbo. But so what? Pool boys like Kroft forgot to say boo when their nation’s first lady was smeared in that manner. Who knows? Perhaps a thrill ran up Kroft’s leg when he saw the buxom balladeer say it. (As Peter Baker might have put it, “Some will surely wonder.”)

The correct term: Clinton used the accurate term. Obama is being widely smeared, and many voters are dumb enough to believe what they read in their e-mails. How can voters be so gullible? In our political culture, it’s considered rude to ask. Again, we’d love to see Saturday Night Live tackle this important topic.

“Journalists” won’t go there: Hillary Clinton used the right term—but don’t expect your “journalists” to go there. Hacks like Chris Matthews sit around, cherry-picking what Clinton said. (See Boehlert’s piece.) But one of the cherries Matthews won’t pick is that important term: Smear. You see, admitting that a smear is underway might require him to follow its pathways—to ask about who is conducting such smears. We don’t know what a search might find. But don’t worry—Chris Matthews won’t go there.

Why won’t Matthews talk about smears? (This part of Clinton’s Q-and-A has been relentlessly disappeared.) We’ll guess: People like Matthews have been deeply involved in sixteen years of smears by this time. Sometimes, they’ve been involved by looking away; frequently, Matthews himself has played alpha male in pimping smears against both Clintons and Gore. Matthews is up to his eyeballs in smears; smears have been a key part of his ministry. He super-smeared Gore for two solid years. (No one did more.) Today, he complains about Iraq.

Killers like Matthews have lived by the smear. When someone actually says the word, they tend to disappear it. Quite quickly.

Clinton used an accurate term. But in this matter, as in so many more, you hear the snippets they want you to hear. It has been their method for many years: The parts that flatter her disappear. The parts they recite sound unlovely.

From the Media Matters post linked above, Eric Boehlert writes:

After parsing Clinton’s answer and then conveniently setting aside key sections of it, journalists at NBC, MSNBC, The New York Times, Chicago Sun-Times, Time, The New Yorker, and The Washington Post, among others, declared her response had been wholly deficient. Worse, Clinton’s answer simply confirmed that she was running a “slimy,” “nasty” contest. It was a “galling” comment; “the sleaziest moment of the campaign.”

The only thing sleazy about the episode was the type of journalism being used to concoct a Clinton slur.

When people suggest that the press employs a separate standard for covering Clinton, this is the kind of episode they’re talking about. There simply is no other candidate, from either party, who has had their comments, their fragments, dissected so dishonestly the way Clinton’s have been.

The fact is, if you look at Clinton’s exchange with Kroft in its entirety, which lasted less than one minute, I count eight separate times in which she either plainly denied the false claim that Obama was Muslim, labeled that suggestion to be a smear, or expressed sympathy for Obama having to deal with the Muslim innuendo. Eight times:

[...]

The 60 Minutes controversy — specifically the intense media spin it sparked — highlights a disturbing rise in a new form of campaign journalism, which might be best described as post-parsing.

Here’s how it works: A candidate (almost always Hillary Clinton) makes a statement, any statement out of the thousands made on the campaign trail each week, and that statement is seized upon by the chattering class and then dissected in order to determine what the real intention was. Experts pore over the text and announce what the candidate should have said during an impromptu exchange with the media. It’s not that the statement in question is wrong, or blatantly malicious, it’s that the statement wasn’t quite right. It should have been a little bit more this or a little more
that. Plus, based upon the pundits’ expert training and analytical skills, they’re able to spot a deeply disturbing, unspoken meaning right below the surface. Alarmed, they then rush to alert voters.

[...]

Lots of the journalism surrounding the story was simply unfair. Meaning, the only way journalists could make the Clinton response to the Muslim question newsworthy was to pretend that when Kroft pressed her, she essentially refused to answer the question and then when she finally did, qualified it with “as far as I know.” Journalists had to hide the most pertinent parts of the answer — the context — in order to make the exchange newsworthy. And lots of reporters and pundits did just that. [cls: several examples at link]

[...]

Much more consistent on the whole matter was Matthews’ MSNBC colleague Joe Scarborough, the former Republican congressman and foot solider in the 1990s Gingrich Revolution. Scarborough saw nothing unusual in Clinton’s Muslim comments. And when MSNBC reporter David Shuster appeared on Scarborough’s morning program on March 4, brought up the 60 Minutes comments, and quickly echoed the media’s conventional wisdom that the comments reflected poorly on Clinton, Scarborough slyly turned the tables to illustrate the absurdity of demanding absolute answers when badgering an interview subject about somebody else’s faith:

SCARBOROUGH: Let me ask you this question, David Shuster, do you think [co-host] Mika Brzezinski is a Christian? She says she is. Is she a Christian?
SHUSTER: Yeah, I believe she is. But here’s the point –
SCARBOROUGH: Hold on a second. You say you believe she’s a Christian. You ‘believe.’ What does that mean? Is she or isn’t she? Is she a Christian or not?
SHUSTER: Well look, Mika and I have never actually had that conversation and I’ve never heard anybody have a conversation about her religion.
SCARBOROUGH: But Mika says she’s a Christian. So you’re saying you don’t know if she’s a Christian or not?
SHUSTER: That’s fine! To me it doesn’t matter.
SCARBOROUGH: Oh, it doesn’t matter? So now you’re saying it doesn’t matter.

Scarborough perfectly proved the larger point: The Clinton-Muslim story was a soggy game of gotcha, and not much more.

Over the years I haven’t always agreed with Joe Scarborough, but I’m able to give credit where credit is due. He may be a Republican, but I’ve noted that he is not blinded by ideology and has a reasonably-honed bullshit detector.