Wall Street Journal caught in front-page lie

[Wonky Pundit]

Looks like they, like the NYT, are also letting their editorial policy steer their journalism.

Seems the Journal's cyberstaff has pulled this story already and trying to pretend it never existed.

For decades, AARP — the nation's largest advocacy group for seniors — has been viewed as the most powerful defender of Social Security. As a result, any hint that the organization might entertain benefit cuts would be seen as an abrupt about-face.

But that's precisely what happened a few days ago, when a front page story in the Wall Street Journal proclaimed that the organization had dropped its longstanding opposition to cutting Social Security benefits.

Almost as soon as the story appeared, AARP officials called it inaccurate and said it misconstrued the organization's position. There had been no change in policy, they said.

But what really rankled David Certner, the organization's legislative policy director, was the timing of the story. It appeared just as negotiations on raising the federal debt ceiling were kicking into high gear. And Certner says it left the impression that AARP would not oppose benefit cuts as part of the effort to reduce the deficit.

Source

 

[Big Black Dog]

The only thing good about the Wall Street Journal is that you get a lot of pages for the price of the paper and it's good to wrap fish in.

 

[Wiseacre]

Apparently, the NY Times, ABC News, CNN, Washington Post, and a slew of others, including Fox News reported the same thing. Below is the snippet from the NYT:


AARP Is Open to Cuts for Social Security Benefits
By ERIC LICHTBLAU
Published: June 17, 2011
WASHINGTON — AARP, the powerful lobby for older Americans that has been seen as one of the leading opponents of Social Security benefit cuts, said on Friday that it was open to modest reductions in benefits for future recipients.
The group’s stance, which generated quick reaction from all sides because of its powerful voice on the issue, could provide added ammunition to fiscal conservatives who have sought unsuccessfully to restructure Social Security and chip away at the benefits it promises older Americans.
“Our goal is to limit any changes in benefits,” John Rother, AARP’s policy chief, said in a telephone interview, “but we also want to see the system made solvent.”
Mr. Rother said the group’s stance on possible cuts, which was first reported in The Wall Street Journal in Friday’s editions, should be seen less as a major change in position than as a reflection of the political and financial realities facing the Social Security system and the country as a whole.
“You have to look at all the tradeoffs,” Mr. Rother said, “and what we’re trying to do is engage the American public in that debate.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/18/us/18aarp.html

 

[daveman]

Apparently, the NY Times, ABC News, CNN, Washington Post, and a slew of others, including Fox News reported the same thing. Below is the snippet from the NYT:


AARP Is Open to Cuts for Social Security Benefits
By ERIC LICHTBLAU
Published: June 17, 2011
WASHINGTON — AARP, the powerful lobby for older Americans that has been seen as one of the leading opponents of Social Security benefit cuts, said on Friday that it was open to modest reductions in benefits for future recipients.
The group’s stance, which generated quick reaction from all sides because of its powerful voice on the issue, could provide added ammunition to fiscal conservatives who have sought unsuccessfully to restructure Social Security and chip away at the benefits it promises older Americans.
“Our goal is to limit any changes in benefits,” John Rother, AARP’s policy chief, said in a telephone interview, “but we also want to see the system made solvent.”
Mr. Rother said the group’s stance on possible cuts, which was first reported in The Wall Street Journal in Friday’s editions, should be seen less as a major change in position than as a reflection of the political and financial realities facing the Social Security system and the country as a whole.
“You have to look at all the tradeoffs,” Mr. Rother said, “and what we’re trying to do is engage the American public in that debate.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/18/us/18aarp.html

The leftwing sources made an honest mistake. The rightwing sources deliberately told a dirty, vicious lie.


Right, Wonky?

 

[Wonky Pundit]

When I see the WSJ's retraction I'll believe it was an honest mistake.

 

[boedicca]

It wasn't a mistake. The AARP is upset at the backlash and is doing spin control.

And you've fallen for it.

 

[daveman]

When I see the WSJ's retraction I'll believe it was an honest mistake.

How about the NYT's, ABC News', and CNN's?

That hotbed of of radical fundy rethugs, NPR, is lying, too: http://www.npr.org/2011/06/24/137395740/for-aarp-a-monumental-shift-on-social-security?ps=cprs

 

[Wonky Pundit]

When I see the WSJ's retraction I'll believe it was an honest mistake.

How about the NYT's, ABC News', and CNN's?

The WSJ has a rightwing editorial policy; the NYT has a leftwing one. Neither publication makes any bones about it, and I have no problem with that. What I do have a problem with (and the Times has been guilty of it a lot recently) is letting bits of editorialization seep into the news articles. It would be naive to think that the Journal honchos don't want to influence the debt ceiling "debate."

That hotbed of of radical fundy rethugs, NPR, is lying, too: For AARP, A 'Monumental' Shift On Social Security? : NPR

That article doesn't prove your point: it's the one I referenced in the OP.

 

[Wonky Pundit]

It wasn't a mistake. The AARP is upset at the backlash and is doing spin control.

And you've fallen for it.

The AARP is the backlash. As they have a right to be, if they believe that information the press writes about them is in error.

 

[daveman]

When I see the WSJ's retraction I'll believe it was an honest mistake.

How about the NYT's, ABC News', and CNN's?

The WSJ has a rightwing editorial policy; the NYT has a leftwing one. Neither publication makes any bones about it, and I have no problem with that. What I do have a problem with (and the Times has been guilty of it a lot recently) is letting bits of editorialization seep into the news articles. It would be naive to think that the Journal honchos don't want to influence the debt ceiling "debate."

Then I was right: The leftwing sources made an honest mistake. The rightwing sources deliberately told a dirty, vicious lie.

That hotbed of of radical fundy rethugs, NPR, is lying, too: For AARP, A 'Monumental' Shift On Social Security? : NPR

That article doesn't prove your point: it's the one I referenced in the OP.

So, you start a thread bitching about the WSJ, and as proof, you link to a story by NPR.


What are you, new?

 

[Trajan]

When I see the WSJ's retraction I'll believe it was an honest mistake.

How about the NYT's, ABC News', and CNN's?

The WSJ has a rightwing editorial policy; the NYT has a leftwing one. Neither publication makes any bones about it, and I have no problem with that. What I do have a problem with (and the Times has been guilty of it a lot recently) is letting bits of editorialization seep into the news articles. It would be naive to think that the Journal honchos don't want to influence the debt ceiling "debate."

That hotbed of of radical fundy rethugs, NPR, is lying, too: For AARP, A 'Monumental' Shift On Social Security? : NPR

That article doesn't prove your point: it's the one I referenced in the OP.

not quite, when I see the times take obama or the dems to takes on the same level the journal has taken bush wet al, you will make me a beleiver.

Do you read the opeds of either paper faithfully? I do.

And I am not ever sure you would recognize the difference, the journal, times et al all basically said the same thing, but in your eyes, you didn't like the language the journal used to make the same basic point....*shrugs*...to turn that into some lie, takes a big set of blinders...

 

[Trajan]

The only thing good about the Wall Street Journal is that you get a lot of pages for the price of the paper and it's good to wrap fish in.

wow, well, do you read it?

 

[Wonky Pundit]

How about the NYT's, ABC News', and CNN's?

The WSJ has a rightwing editorial policy; the NYT has a leftwing one. Neither publication makes any bones about it, and I have no problem with that. What I do have a problem with (and the Times has been guilty of it a lot recently) is letting bits of editorialization seep into the news articles. It would be naive to think that the Journal honchos don't want to influence the debt ceiling "debate."

That hotbed of of radical fundy rethugs, NPR, is lying, too: For AARP, A 'Monumental' Shift On Social Security? : NPR

That article doesn't prove your point: it's the one I referenced in the OP.

not quite, when I see the times take obama or the dems to takes on the same level the journal has taken bush wet al, you will make me a beleiver.

Do you read the opeds of either paper faithfully? I do.

And I am not ever sure you would recognize the difference, the journal, times et al all basically said the same thing, but in your eyes, you didn't like the language the journal used to make the same basic point....*shrugs*...to turn that into some lie, takes a big set of blinders...

Rather slippery of you to include that "same level" phrase. The Times has frequently been critical of Obama and congressional Dems.

 

[Trajan]

The WSJ has a rightwing editorial policy; the NYT has a leftwing one. Neither publication makes any bones about it, and I have no problem with that. What I do have a problem with (and the Times has been guilty of it a lot recently) is letting bits of editorialization seep into the news articles. It would be naive to think that the Journal honchos don't want to influence the debt ceiling "debate."


That article doesn't prove your point: it's the one I referenced in the OP.

not quite, when I see the times take obama or the dems to takes on the same level the journal has taken bush wet al, you will make me a beleiver.

Do you read the opeds of either paper faithfully? I do.

And I am not ever sure you would recognize the difference, the journal, times et al all basically said the same thing, but in your eyes, you didn't like the language the journal used to make the same basic point....*shrugs*...to turn that into some lie, takes a big set of blinders...

Rather slippery of you to include that "same level" phrase. The Times has frequently been critical of Obama and congressional Dems.

uh huh...

 

[Trajan]

Looks like they, like the NYT, are also letting their editorial policy steer their journalism.

Seems the Journal's cyberstaff has pulled this story already and trying to pretend it never existed.

For decades, AARP — the nation's largest advocacy group for seniors — has been viewed as the most powerful defender of Social Security. As a result, any hint that the organization might entertain benefit cuts would be seen as an abrupt about-face.

But that's precisely what happened a few days ago, when a front page story in the Wall Street Journal proclaimed that the organization had dropped its longstanding opposition to cutting Social Security benefits.

Almost as soon as the story appeared, AARP officials called it inaccurate and said it misconstrued the organization's position. There had been no change in policy, they said.

But what really rankled David Certner, the organization's legislative policy director, was the timing of the story. It appeared just as negotiations on raising the federal debt ceiling were kicking into high gear. And Certner says it left the impression that AARP would not oppose benefit cuts as part of the effort to reduce the deficit.

Source

they pulled the article?

I found it right here...

AARP Pivots on Social Security Benefit Cut - WSJ.com

 

[westwall]

Looks like they, like the NYT, are also letting their editorial policy steer their journalism.

Seems the Journal's cyberstaff has pulled this story already and trying to pretend it never existed.

For decades, AARP — the nation's largest advocacy group for seniors — has been viewed as the most powerful defender of Social Security. As a result, any hint that the organization might entertain benefit cuts would be seen as an abrupt about-face.

But that's precisely what happened a few days ago, when a front page story in the Wall Street Journal proclaimed that the organization had dropped its longstanding opposition to cutting Social Security benefits.

Almost as soon as the story appeared, AARP officials called it inaccurate and said it misconstrued the organization's position. There had been no change in policy, they said.

But what really rankled David Certner, the organization's legislative policy director, was the timing of the story. It appeared just as negotiations on raising the federal debt ceiling were kicking into high gear. And Certner says it left the impression that AARP would not oppose benefit cuts as part of the effort to reduce the deficit.

Source

they pulled the article?

I found it right here...

AARP Pivots on Social Security Benefit Cut - WSJ.com

Oh don't do that! He'll lose his reason for his feigned moral outrage.

 

[Foxfyre]

It looks to me that NPR is spinning the story more dishonestly than any other source though they give the appearance of neutrality. When I read the WSJ story, it seems to be confirmed by everything the AARP spokesperson was putting out there in damage control. Admittedly the AARP doesn't want the first paragraph of a news story to reflect anything other than undying support and protection for Social Security, but the fact is they are seeing the handwriting on the wall like everybody else.

NPR also suggests that seniors are tearing up their AARP cards in protest of the social security comment. And to be fair, that may be what they were told--they aren't all that proficient at meticulously checking facts before printing them. But the truth is, Seniors have been tearing up their AARP cards for some time now ever since AARP backed Obamacare because it would benefit AARP's own insurance program which seems to be their No. 1 priority these days.

 

[Wonky Pundit]

Looks like they, like the NYT, are also letting their editorial policy steer their journalism.

Seems the Journal's cyberstaff has pulled this story already and trying to pretend it never existed.

For decades, AARP — the nation's largest advocacy group for seniors — has been viewed as the most powerful defender of Social Security. As a result, any hint that the organization might entertain benefit cuts would be seen as an abrupt about-face.

But that's precisely what happened a few days ago, when a front page story in the Wall Street Journal proclaimed that the organization had dropped its longstanding opposition to cutting Social Security benefits.

Almost as soon as the story appeared, AARP officials called it inaccurate and said it misconstrued the organization's position. There had been no change in policy, they said.

But what really rankled David Certner, the organization's legislative policy director, was the timing of the story. It appeared just as negotiations on raising the federal debt ceiling were kicking into high gear. And Certner says it left the impression that AARP would not oppose benefit cuts as part of the effort to reduce the deficit.

Source

they pulled the article?

I found it right here...

AARP Pivots on Social Security Benefit Cut - WSJ.com

Good. For some reason it wasn't showing up when I searched for it.

 

[Trajan]

Looks like they, like the NYT, are also letting their editorial policy steer their journalism.

Seems the Journal's cyberstaff has pulled this story already and trying to pretend it never existed.


Source

they pulled the article?

I found it right here...

AARP Pivots on Social Security Benefit Cut - WSJ.com

Good. For some reason it wasn't showing up when I searched for it.

good what? where's YOUR retraction, eh?

 

[westwall]

they pulled the article?

I found it right here...

AARP Pivots on Social Security Benefit Cut - WSJ.com

Good. For some reason it wasn't showing up when I searched for it.

good what? where's YOUR retraction, eh?

He's a wonky pundit, not a factual one!