willfull disregard for the truth

Discussion in 'Media' started by Star, Dec 10, 2012.

  1. Star
    Offline

    Star Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2009
    Messages:
    2,510
    Thanks Received:
    594
    Trophy Points:
    155
    Ratings:
    +1,016
    .
    "I can't recall a campaign where I've seen more lying going on -- and it wasn't symmetric," said Ornstein, a scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute who's been tracking Congress with Mann since 1978. Democrats were hardly innocent, he said, "but it seemed pretty clear to me that the Republican campaign was just far more over the top."

    Lies from Republicans generally and standard bearer Mitt Romney in particular weren't limited to the occasional TV ads, either; the party's most central campaign principles -- that federal spending doesn't create jobs, that reducing taxes on the rich could create jobs and lower the deficit -- willfully disregarded the truth. ~ Dan Froomkin



    How the Mainstream Press Bungled the Single Biggest Story of the 2012 Campaign


    Dan Froomkin
    12/07/2012


    Post-mortems of contemporary election coverage typically include regrets about horserace journalism, he-said-she-said stenography, and the lack of enlightening stories about the issues.

    But according to longtime political observers Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein, campaign coverage in 2012 was a particularly calamitous failure, almost entirely missing the single biggest story of the race: Namely, the radical right-wing, off-the-rails lurch of the Republican Party, both in terms of its agenda and its relationship to the truth.

    Mann and Ornstein are two longtime centrist Washington fixtures who earlier this year dramatically rejected the strictures of false equivalency that bind so much of the capital's media elite and publicly concluded that GOP leaders have become "ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition."

    The 2012 campaign further proved their point, they both said in recent interviews. It also exposed how fabulists and liars can exploit the elite media's fear of being seen as taking sides.

    "The mainstream press really has such a difficult time trying to cope with asymmetry between the two parties' agendas and connections to facts and truth," said Mann, who has spent nearly three decades as a congressional scholar at the centrist Brookings Institution.

    "I saw some journalists struggling to avoid the trap of balance and I knew they were struggling with it -- and with their editors," said Mann. "But in general, I think overall it was a pretty disappointing performance."


    <snip>


    more> here
    .
     
  2. Star
    Offline

    Star Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2009
    Messages:
    2,510
    Thanks Received:
    594
    Trophy Points:
    155
    Ratings:
    +1,016

    "While the Democrats, too, tossed out some falsehoods, there was no comparison between them and the Republicans' intentional, ideologically extreme perversion "of facts, evidence and science." Yet reporters and their bosses, so fearful of being accused of taking sides, failed to make a distinction — which, after all, is their job.
    "It's the great unreported big story of American politics," said Ornstein.

    The duo [Mann and Ornstein] was surprisingly blunt, noting that the GOP was not just practicing politics as usual, with a fib here and a prevarication there, but an orchestrated strategy of dumping bald-faced fabrications wholesale on the voting public." ~ Jim Hightower


    The Mass Media Favorites Fall Out of Favor | NationofChange

    Jim Hightower
    12 December 2012

    Let us address the declining fortunes of today's mainstream mass media.

    (Yes, I can hear your pained screams of "Nooooo ... we don't want to!" We really must, however, because it's not about them, but us — about our ability to be at least quasi-informed about who's-doing-what-to-whom-and-why, in order for us to be a self-governing people. So buckle-up, here we go.)

    The honchos of America's establishment media are quick to blame such external causes as the Internet for their problems. But if they looked internally, they might notice that they're damn near eaten-up with a bad case of conventional wisdomitis. The problem with conventional wisdom is that more often than not it's nothing more than the contrived "wisdom" of the corporate powers.
    Ironically, this narrow perspective not only afflicts their delivery of the news, but also their business model. For example, with newspaper readership declining, the accepted industry response by owners and publishers has been to fire beat reporters, shrink the news hole, reduce reporting to rewriting of wire service articles — and then run hokey PR campaigns hyping the shriveled product as "Real News."


    But here's a bit of real news that very few newspapers have mentioned: The new owners of the Orange County Register are blazing a contrarian path toward their paper's revival and prosperity. They're expanding the Register's news staff, its coverage and the paper's size, doubling the editorial page and adding more sections. Editor Ken Brusic notes that offering less to subscribers and charging more not only is a rip-off and an insult to readers, but a sure path to failure. "So," he says, "we're now offering more."


    Gosh — hire real watchdog reporters, dig out real news and actually try to make the paper real to local readers — what a novel notion for a news business! Unsurprisingly, the conventional wisdomites are sneering at the Register's nonconformist effort.

    "It's not what most people are doing," said one analyst of the media business.


    Exactly! And that's why it's so promising!

    Of course, getting in the face of power and defying the conventional wisdom can be a poor career move. You can quickly begin feeling like B.B. King, when he sings, [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EvCccp3qMX8"]"No one loves me but my mother, and she could be jivin', too."[/ame]

    Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein now know that lonely feeling. This teamed-up pair of political partisan observers have long been esteemed peers of the Washington punditry class. Cautious, middle-of-the-road, think-tank conservatives, they were popular on the insider talk-show circuit as reliable voices of conventional thinking. Until they went rogue.

    In assessing the 2012 election, Mann and Ornstein have charged that the elite media deliberately failed to cover the biggest story of all — namely that the Republican Party and its nominees were flagrantly running a campaign of lies.

    <snip>

    "They're so timid," Mann said — and a timid press is a weak one. "You're failing in your fundamental responsibility," Ornstein said of them, asking the obvious question: "What are you there for? Your obvious job is to report the truth."

    For daring to tell the truth about the media's abject failure, Mann and Ornstein have been blackballed. They're no longer invited to talk on the inside-politics shows, nor have those shows even mentioned the media's pusillanimous role in abetting the Big Lies of 2012.
    .
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  3. TNHarley
    Offline

    TNHarley Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2012
    Messages:
    26,576
    Thanks Received:
    4,090
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +20,540
    Bullshit
     
  4. HUGGY
    Offline

    HUGGY I Post Because I Care Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2009
    Messages:
    33,727
    Thanks Received:
    3,805
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    Seattle, in a run down motel
    Ratings:
    +6,285
    The Mass media does not care about truth. The Mass Media is a business and their main concern during an election cycle is to show an election as being as close as possible if not purposefully showing the trailing candidate as being ahead from time to time. They do this because it forces the opposing parties to spend more money in advertising to counter the percieved sense that they are losing the election.

    Complaining about the business practices of the media is futile. They will play the participants for all of the money in ads they can using any and all tricks at their disposal.

    Several billion dollars were up for grabs in the election. That is no small potatoes. Controversy is the engine that drives up the anty.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  5. eflatminor
    Offline

    eflatminor Classical Liberal

    Joined:
    May 24, 2011
    Messages:
    9,236
    Thanks Received:
    1,399
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,046
    So, Mr. Froomkin is just 100% sure that increasing taxes on the rich would create jobs and lower the deficit?

    Perhaps someone needs to direct 'ol Froomie to the current situations in France, the UK and the state of California. After raising taxes on the rich in those places, unemployment increased and most importantly, tax revenues have DECREASED.

    Now I'm not saying reducing taxes on the rich would automatically create jobs and generate more tax revenue, which could be used to lower the deficit. It might, it might not. Certainly, there is much historical evidence to back up that belief. Dr. Laffer has made a career out of demonstrating just that.

    So, while Mr Froomkin is free to disagree with that assertion, calling anyone that believes in the Laffer curve a liar is, ironically, demonstrating a...how did he put it..."willfull disregard for the truth".
     
  6. nesta
    Offline

    nesta Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2012
    Messages:
    94
    Thanks Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Ratings:
    +12
    there is no historical evidence lowering taxes on the rich creates jobs, thats a lie, lowering taxes on middle class and poor people does as they are the consumers, lowering rich peoples taxes creates absolutely zero jobs whatsoever.
     
  7. eflatminor
    Offline

    eflatminor Classical Liberal

    Joined:
    May 24, 2011
    Messages:
    9,236
    Thanks Received:
    1,399
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,046
    On the other hand, there is no historical evidence to suggest raising taxes on the rich create jobs either, so the question must be asked, why do it?

    If you're thinking "increased tax revenue" as a reason why, that would also lack historical evidence. In fact, there exists plenty of evidence that increasing tax rates on the rich results in LESS tax revenue.

    In the last month, the UK, France, and the state of California learned that the hard way. After raising tax rates on the rich, tax revenues from that segment of the population decreased, as did overall tax revenues. Unemployment also increased, but I'm not claiming a direct causation there.
     
  8. blastoff
    Offline

    blastoff Undocumented Reg. User

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    13,494
    Thanks Received:
    1,707
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Location:
    In a galaxy far far away...
    Ratings:
    +4,592
    Oh, I get it. It's all a matter of degree. One side does it, but the other side does it more. Yep, I got it.
     
  9. Old Rocks
    Offline

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,465
    Thanks Received:
    5,410
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,305
    Really? Raised taxes in the early '90's, and how did the rest of that decade go? Compared to the decade in which Bush lowered taxes? Seems to be a rather good historical comparison right there.
     
  10. eflatminor
    Offline

    eflatminor Classical Liberal

    Joined:
    May 24, 2011
    Messages:
    9,236
    Thanks Received:
    1,399
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,046
    Well, let's take a look at the tax changes in the 90s. We did raise taxes in the early 90s and guess what? It didn't raise any tax revenues...that's the point. In 1989, federal revenues were 19.3% of GDP. In 1991, after the tax rate hikes, revenues slipped to 19.1%. According to the WSJ, the rich in particular paid LESS taxes after the rates where raised - $6.5 billion less! The WSJ report stated "81% of the revenues expected from the 1990 budget deal failed to materialize"

    Shocker...:doubt:

    Clinton also implemented a 10% "luxury tax" on yachts, jewelry, private planes, etc. Guess what? The rich bought these items overseas. In the first 2 years of the luxury tax, 9,400 workers in the boat making industry lost their jobs. The guy that had championed the luxury tax (George Mitchell) successfully fought to repealed the luxury tax just a year later. Lesson learned...

    Clinton did raise tax rates again in 1993. The economy had grown at 4.5% in the 12 months before the tax hikes. In 1993 and 1994, it slipped to 2-3%. Bummer...

    The major rationale behind for the Clinton tax hike was to lower interest rates. Unfortunately, interest rates actually rose by more than two points by late '94. Bummer again...

    Clinton's tax increase was also part of his plan to lower the deficit with more revenues, not less spending. Unfortunately, two years later, the deficit had increased. So much for that...

    The economy did boom significantly after November of 1994. The reason was NOT his tax hikes but his embracing of free market policies (Dick Morris was Clinton's political consultant). He promoted free trade, tighter budgets, and yes he CUT taxes. Clinton signed a capital gains tax cut and he signed welfare reform.

    The capital gains tax cut caused a burst of tax revenues INCREASES. There you go, another example of how lowering tax rates can lead to increased revenues. Cool!

    Clinton was not the liberal Keynesian you think he was, certainly not after 1994. In fact, I recall Jesse Jackson complaining Clinton was more like Reagan than FDR. He was right.

    Point is, raising tax rates on anyone now, especially in an economic downturn, is more likely to result in less tax revenue than more.

    So again I ask "What do you hope to accomplish by raising tax rates?"
     

Share This Page