Debate Now Fact Checking: Objective lies and misrepresentations of perspective and relevant details

[320 Years of History]

Just a moment ago, I heard Wolf Blitzer mention that Mrs. Clinton will attend a "high priced fundraiser" this evening. "High priced," really? The price of a seat there is $2700. I won't call that cheap, but high priced? Hardly...just how far does one think $2700 goes in the U.S. in 2016? I can assure you, not far at all; $2700 is about what an average frugal person spends each year on food.

Another illustration: $2700 is a sum that is within the means of an average middle class earner/family. Looking at the chart found at the link you'll see that the top 40% of the nation has the money to spend. That necessarily inspires the question, "How much need one earn to be among the top 60%?" The answer, ~$42K is found here. Obviously, one finds that ell over half the U.S. population fits that definition, something on the order of ~65% - 70% in fact.

It doesn't make much sense, IMO, for them to spend it on a campaign fundraiser, but it's not outside of the realm of what they can do with it. In contrast, the average person simply does not have the disposable means to buy an MB S Class sedan. Quite simply, whether one has a given sum of money available to spend does not make the sum in question a high priced sum or a low priced one. Whether one is willing to spend that sum to attend a fundraiser also has no bearing on whether the sum qualifies as high priced.

At best, the only thing making that L.A. event's ticket price qualify as "high priced" is that it is the maximum one can contribute to a candidate's campaign committee. Even there, however, it hardly qualifies as high priced as there are events for which the beneficiary is not the candidate's campaign and that the sum required is over ten times $2700.

I have a problem with Mr. Blitzer calling the fundraiser high priced because:

• His doing so makes it appear as though he/CNN are buying into the idea that she is in the pocket of wealthy folks.
• Viewers should decide for themselves whether the ticket price is high, not high, "whatever." Neither he nor any other news reporter (as compared/contrasted with an editorialist) should color the facts with qualitative assertions about those facts.

I might not have as much of a problem with his qualifying the ticket price as high priced were the matter of income disparity and the role of the wealthy in American politics not such "hot button" topics this election cycle. That they are a "hot button" topics" this cycle is all the more reason for reporters to restrain themselves with regard to it, as well as any other "hot button" topic when they aren't expressly editorializing and it's clear (because the segment isn't presented as "hard news") they are doing so. Journalistic integrity requires a higher level of circumspection for such topics.

FWIW, I don't find CNN doing this as much as or more than some other news outlets, and I find CNN does it more than some other do.

Thread Rules:
So the point of this thread is for members to cite misrepresentations -- statements and rhetorical questions that are either (1) quantitatively wrong, (2) qualitative unlikely to be right, or (3) lapses in providing a balanced perspective when making a claim -- heard or read in the news, on blogs, in newspapers, or other media outlets. Though I'm not opposed to lively discussion, I'm more interested in this being a thread where folks bring to others' attention the nature and extent of misrepresentations in the news or political speech that deliberately or accidentally give a predominantly inaccurate representation of reality.

1. You must (1) explain why you take exception with the remark(s) you cite as misrepresentations, and (2) provide a reference link that supports your claim that the statement and it inference/implications does indeed constitute a misrepresentation. You must because we (USMB members) don't know you; thus we have no way to know if you are an expert who "just knows."
2. You must provide references for refutations you make of others' claims.
3. Be precise. Be clear. Write what you mean. Do not force readers to infer what you mean, agree with you, or read your mind to fully understand the nature, context and import of your points.

 

[JakeStarkey]

What is interesting to me today that MSNBC reported HRC received $22 million of the $38 million so far directly gifted to the campaigns.

 

[320 Years of History]

What is interesting to me today that MSNBC reported HRC received $22 million of the $38 million so far directly gifted to the campaigns.

I don't watch MSNBC (or Fox) except when asked expressly to do so. I have no idea of what they say. TY for sharing.

Off Topic:
I have noticed folks have taken to using HRC to mean Mrs. Clinton. Everytime I see HRC, however, the first thing that comes to mind are my neighbors who are very active with the Human Rights Campaign and who have hosted several events for that organization. I don't have a lot of interaction with them, but they are the first folks I ever heard use the acronym HRC, and it's stuck in my mind as a result. LOL

 

[JoeMoma]

High priced is subjective. I consider $2,700 for an event of a few hours and perhaps a steak dinner to be high priced even though I could come up with that amount. According to the following article, it costs much more to attend the event she is having with George Clooney. At the end of this article it says that $2,700 per per person is the limit if the amount is solely for her campaign; however, since proceeds also go to the democratic party, ticket prices are allowed to be much more.

www.fortune.com/2016/03/25/clinton-clooney

According to the above article, it costs over 300K to sit next to HRC or the Clooneys at the fund raiser. If people can attend for just $2,700 then they are getting the "cheap" seats.

 

[320 Years of History]

According to the following article, it costs much more to attend the event she is having with George Clooney.

It did, and I don't think anyone would call that dinner party/fundraiser anything but "high priced."

High priced is subjective. I consider $2,700 for an event of a few hours and perhaps a steak dinner to be high priced even though I could come up with that amount.

That, for me, is the distinction between "too expensive" and "high priced."

• Too expensive -- a qualitative conclusion one makes about whether the value received is commensurate with the value given up in order to receive it. It's a statement about one's willingness to spend what it takes to receive the thing paid for, but has nothing to do with affordability.
• High priced -- a quantitative measure of whether a thing is higher or lower priced in relation to other similar things one could instead purchase.

One can look around and determine objectively whether a thing is high priced within the spectrum of existing price points. One cannot do that with to determine what is or is not too expensive. I suspect most Republicans may not chit chatting with Mrs. Clinton, but they also likely think spending one red cent to do so is too expensive (too much to pay) for the opportunity to do so.

The theme of this thread is misrepresentations of fact and flavors thereof, and that is the reason I took exception with "high priced" and noted in my OP. Mr. Blitzer didn't indicate which fundraiser he was referring to, leaving ambiguous whether he meant the $2700 one or the $350K+ one. In prior election cycles, it may not have mattered, but in this one it does, and that is contextually why I took exception with his depiction of the event.

 

[JoeMoma]

According to the following article, it costs much more to attend the event she is having with George Clooney.

It did, and I don't think anyone would call that dinner party/fundraiser anything but "high priced."

High priced is subjective. I consider $2,700 for an event of a few hours and perhaps a steak dinner to be high priced even though I could come up with that amount.

That, for me, is the distinction between "too expensive" and "high priced."

• Too expensive -- a qualitative conclusion one makes about whether the value received is commensurate with the value given up in order to receive it. It's a statement about one's willingness to spend what it takes to receive the thing paid for, but has nothing to do with affordability.
• High priced -- a quantitative measure of whether a thing is higher or lower priced in relation to other similar things one could instead purchase.

One can look around and determine objectively whether a thing is high priced within the spectrum of existing price points. One cannot do that with to determine what is or is not too expensive. I suspect most Republicans may not chit chatting with Mrs. Clinton, but they also likely think spending one red cent to do so is too expensive (too much to pay) for the opportunity to do so.

The theme of this thread is misrepresentations of fact and flavors thereof, and that is the reason I took exception with "high priced" and noted in my OP. Mr. Blitzer didn't indicate which fundraiser he was referring to, leaving ambiguous whether he meant the $2700 one or the $350K+ one. In prior election cycles, it may not have mattered, but in this one it does, and that is contextually why I took exception with his depiction of the event.

I can take a lady to a very nice restaurant for a steak dinner for $200. Taking a lady to a steak dinner that raises funds for HRC that costs $5,400 for the two of us is high priced.

By the way, things that are "high priced" are by definition "too expensive" for most people.

 

[320 Years of History]

According to the following article, it costs much more to attend the event she is having with George Clooney.

It did, and I don't think anyone would call that dinner party/fundraiser anything but "high priced."

High priced is subjective. I consider $2,700 for an event of a few hours and perhaps a steak dinner to be high priced even though I could come up with that amount.

That, for me, is the distinction between "too expensive" and "high priced."

• Too expensive -- a qualitative conclusion one makes about whether the value received is commensurate with the value given up in order to receive it. It's a statement about one's willingness to spend what it takes to receive the thing paid for, but has nothing to do with affordability.
• High priced -- a quantitative measure of whether a thing is higher or lower priced in relation to other similar things one could instead purchase.

One can look around and determine objectively whether a thing is high priced within the spectrum of existing price points. One cannot do that with to determine what is or is not too expensive. I suspect most Republicans may not chit chatting with Mrs. Clinton, but they also likely think spending one red cent to do so is too expensive (too much to pay) for the opportunity to do so.

The theme of this thread is misrepresentations of fact and flavors thereof, and that is the reason I took exception with "high priced" and noted in my OP. Mr. Blitzer didn't indicate which fundraiser he was referring to, leaving ambiguous whether he meant the $2700 one or the $350K+ one. In prior election cycles, it may not have mattered, but in this one it does, and that is contextually why I took exception with his depiction of the event.

I can take a lady to a very nice restaurant for a steak dinner for $200. Taking a lady to a steak dinner that raises funds for HRC that costs $5,400 for the two of us is high priced.

By the way, things that are "high priced" are by definition "too expensive" for most people.

Red:
That you can take someone to a "very nice restaurant for a steak dinner for $200" is precisely what makes $5400 high priced for a steak dinner. If you consider your expenditure's primary value as being that of buying a steak dinner, that would explain why you also will consider doing so too expensive. I suspect everyone thinks $5400 is high priced for a steak dinner. I can't attest to who thinks it's expensive, too expensive, etc., but I will posit that most folks think that's too much money to spend for a steak dinner.

Blue:
Whether high priced things are also too expensive for most people is open to question. I think $5 for a box or candy and ~$10 for a large bucket of popcorn is too expensive, which is why I refuse to buy them in movie theaters, even though they are not at all too expensive for me, most likely lots of folks, probably most folks, to actually buy.

There are lots of things like that. I think yellow mustard is yellow mustard, could not care less from one brand to the next (therefore, for me, all that matters among yellow mustards is price), and I would never pay for a fancy brand of it. On the other hand, I'm quite particular about "gourmet" flavored mustards, having a particular taste for Silver Palate Sweet Mustard and even sometimes picking up a jar of artisanal mustard when I'm in Paris. I also buy the low priced balsamic vinegar found in grocery stores as well as the aged and high priced type found in gourmet grocers/vinegar stores because I can tell the differences between them and prefer the former to cook with and the latter on breads, salads, fruit, and finished dishes. On a more general level, I won't buy things at Dean and Deluca (D&D) when a suitable substitute good is available elsewhere (and equally conveniently to me) for notably less money, yet when I'm in D.C., I routinely buy certain food items from D&D.

One may call me cheap in that regard. I would agree with one who does, but I prefer to think of myself as frugal more so than cheap.

 

[JoeMoma]

At any rate, I agree with Wolf Blitzer about ARC's fundraiser being high priced.

 

[Care4all]

i'd rather go to the dinner for 2700, than to just donate the 2700 to the campaign....

 

[320 Years of History]

At any rate, I agree with Wolf Blitzer about ARC's fundraiser being high priced.

That you do is perfectly fine by me. That Mr. Blitzer "told" his viewers that it is high priced rather than just citing the price of the ticket is what roils me.

Objective reporting:

Mrs. Clinton will be in Los Angeles today attending two fundraisers, one of which is hosted by George Clooney and has a $350K+ price of admission. The other, a daytime luncheon, carries a $2700 price of admission.​

I truly don't care whether folks think the price is high, low, normal, expensive, whatever. I just don't like that the reporter made that judgment as though everyone would agree with him rather than leaving it up to viewers to decide for themselves.

 

[jwoodie]

ALL fundraising activities are "high priced" in that they expect to make a profit. Oops, is that a bad thing?