Krugman
By on Jan 30th, 2006 at 7:57 am
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Business
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Global Warming
Health Care
Hoffman
Immigration
International Relations
Iraq
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
Darn those facts getting in the way of another
January 30th, 2006 at 8:14 amRove fax alert!
Good thing Katie has Rove’s back.
Must be time to hold a “facts ethics panel”
(As Atrios might say), since the facts can’t
seem to stay on “Fox Balance”
Krugman must have missed the memo.
When the facts are so completely unrefutable, the Liberal Media is forced to report those facts, but in a meek voice.
January 30th, 2006 at 8:59 amOT but Exxon Mobil reports 10.71 Billion dollars in fourth quarter profits, but they needed a tax break..
January 30th, 2006 at 9:02 amHere’s Paul Krugman’s excellent article.
http://www.trueblueliberal.com/2006/01/30/a-false-balance/
Wouldn’t it be nice if these MSM folks had to admit their ‘mistakes’ and correct their misleading comments on the air that they originally spewed them on. That’s been a huge problem for Democrats. Even though they’ve clearly refuted the erroneous spin, it’s not shown on the media it was originally presented, thus many Americans aren’t seeing the corrections as needed and believe the first one. How many wingers have we seen come here and accuse the truth seekers of creating spin on the original spin! We need to have truth and integrity restored in MSM. Too bad that Dem’s (Kerry, Gore, etc.) aren’t suing these yahoos for slander and libel. Hell, if Carol Burnette can succeed against the Enquirer, one would think that high profile politians could succeed against Faux News and their ilk.
January 30th, 2006 at 9:09 amIn case you don’t have TimesSelect pay service:
January 30, 2006
Op-Ed Columnist
A False Balance
By PAUL KRUGMAN
“How does one report the facts,” asked Rob Corddry on “The Daily Show,” “when the facts themselves are biased?” He explained to Jon Stewart, who played straight man, that “facts in Iraq have an anti-Bush agenda,” and therefore can’t be reported.
Mr. Corddry’s parody of journalists who believe they must be “balanced” even when the truth isn’t balanced continues, alas, to ring true. The most recent example is the peculiar determination of some news organizations to cast the scandal surrounding Jack Abramoff as “bipartisan.”
Let’s review who Mr. Abramoff is and what he did.
Here’s how a 2004 Washington Post article described Mr. Abramoff’s background: “Abramoff’s conservative-movement credentials date back more than two decades to his days as a national leader of the College Republicans.” In the 1990’s, reports the article, he found his “niche” as a lobbyist “with entree to the conservatives who were taking control of Congress. He enjoys a close bond with [Tom] DeLay.”
Mr. Abramoff hit the jackpot after Republicans took control of the White House as well as Congress. He persuaded several Indian tribes with gambling interests that they needed to pay vast sums for his services and those of Michael Scanlon, a former DeLay aide. From the same Washington Post article: “Under Abramoff’s guidance, the four tribes … have also become major political donors. They have loosened their traditional ties to the Democratic Party, giving Republicans two-thirds of the $2.9 million they have donated to federal candidates since 2001, records show.”
So Mr. Abramoff is a movement conservative whose lobbying career was based on his connections with other movement conservatives. His big coup was persuading gullible Indian tribes to hire him as an adviser; his advice was to give less money to Democrats and more to Republicans. There’s nothing bipartisan about this tale, which is all about the use and abuse of Republican connections.
Yet over the past few weeks a number of journalists, ranging from The Washington Post’s ombudsman to the “Today” show’s Katie Couric, have declared that Mr. Abramoff gave money to both parties. In each case the journalists or their news organization, when challenged, grudgingly conceded that Mr. Abramoff himself hasn’t given a penny to Democrats. But in each case they claimed that this is only a technical point, because Mr. Abramoff’s clients — those Indian tribes — gave money to Democrats as well as Republicans, money the news organizations say he “directed” to Democrats.
But the tribes were already giving money to Democrats before Mr. Abramoff entered the picture; he persuaded them to reduce those Democratic donations, while giving much more money to Republicans. A study commissioned by The American Prospect shows that the tribes’ donations to Democrats fell by 9 percent after they hired Mr. Abramoff, while their contributions to Republicans more than doubled. So in any normal sense of the word “directed,” Mr. Abramoff directed funds away from Democrats, not toward them.
True, some Democrats who received tribal donations before Mr. Abramoff’s entrance continued to receive donations after his arrival. How, exactly, does this implicate them in Mr. Abramoff’s machinations? Bear in mind that no Democrat has been indicted or is rumored to be facing indictment in the Abramoff scandal, nor has any Democrat been credibly accused of doing Mr. Abramoff questionable favors.
There have been both bipartisan and purely Democratic scandals in the past. Based on everything we know so far, however, the Abramoff affair is a purely Republican scandal.
Why does the insistence of some journalists on calling this one-party scandal bipartisan matter? For one thing, the public is led to believe that the Abramoff affair is just Washington business as usual, which it isn’t. The scale of the scandals now coming to light, of which the Abramoff affair is just a part, dwarfs anything in living memory.
More important, this kind of misreporting makes the public feel helpless. Voters who are told, falsely, that both parties were drawn into Mr. Abramoff’s web are likely to become passive and shrug their shoulders instead of demanding reform.
So the reluctance of some journalists to report facts that, in this case, happen to have an anti-Republican agenda is a serious matter. It’s not a stretch to say that these journalists are acting as enablers for the rampant corruption that has emerged in Washington over the last decade.
January 30th, 2006 at 9:18 amThis guy obviously supports Osama bin Laden.
I have read this info at this link over and over. I have downloaded and watched videos over and over. WTF is going on here? I thought 9/11 was all about the Saudis…
January 30th, 2006 at 9:31 amhttp://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/
Thanks to Lisa and Badmoodman for the link and copy.
January 30th, 2006 at 9:47 amI am angry with the NYT and their highhandedness in disallowing the public to read op-eds and columnists unless an annual fee is paid. One would think that with the print media being in decline they would be encouraging readers.
Ted Koppel had an op-ed Sunday in the NYT that was also critical of the news media, but that, too, was protected.
Rob Corddry’s version of journalism is an accurate portrayal of the industry.
How many of these will it take?
Gerald wrong planet this is about Abrarmoff and the MSM’s attempt to spin the republican scandal into a “bipartisin scandal” to take the heat off fo the radical right.
January 30th, 2006 at 9:50 amI still want to know how the NY Times was allowed to posses classified material for a whole year. What assurance were obtained from the participants in maintaining the security of this information? Nbc corporation seems to be listing to starboard , Katie, Whackjob , Nora O’donnell and of course The Queen herself, Adrea Mitchell or I forgot Mr. Russert and seem to be under some sort of marching orders to kiss the White House hiney like it was their grandmother. Must be for their stock holders. Marie I think a blogger subscriptions just like cable TV is on it’s way, also new copyright law being cooked right now Hr683, I think the big corporations are planning to respond on a couple of fronts to wrestle back control and some sort of revenue before it’s too late.
January 30th, 2006 at 10:28 amNo fly man it’s for their corporate owners ….. GE
January 30th, 2006 at 10:51 amWhen the facts are so completely unrefutable, the Liberal Media is forced to report those facts, but in a meek voice.
Comment by Gary Ruppert — January 30, 2006 @ 8:59
Ya know Gary, Its okay to talk like a regular person, your consistent non comittals to anything, and objections to everything make you seem as a very Pessimistic Person. Scared little man nothing to hide, yet hides it. Hates everything and everyone thats not YOU. Are you some kinda ascetic Hermit Gary?
this what you say above;
When the Facts (you supplied none) are so completely unrefutable Liberal Medai (its Murdocch/Kristol Conservative media PROVEN) but in a meek voice.
You misunderstand the meaning of the word Meek and are comparing that to weak. If you mr gary should happen upon me, perhaps in a Bar, or at work, you would find me meek.
Meek in that I respect all people and go about my ways, and respect their ways, if and when possible, I will debate my ways and their ways, be it scientific or Monastic, or even relating to the Talmud or the Quballah, some are aetheists GARY, in the REAL world where I LIVE. And with them I debate quantum particles.
One day Gary you will see that, your ‘Might is Right’, Speak Much and LIE alot, Is doomed to Failure, because it always falls back unto the masses for ’self correction’ of the Ideological Wars, Pessimistic Ideologues, created in this World by your type of ‘Thunk’
January 30th, 2006 at 12:12 pmThank You Mr.Ho for your great posts. Very informative. No neck Mcclellen or Scotty as he is called is on his usual speal for the press, gees I am so sick of this entire bunch. Every time they open their mouths and drop the values and freedom spin words I know it’s more of the same…Lies….Blessings all…
January 30th, 2006 at 1:07 pmGary,
I’m afraid that you must have missed the memo. We have a lobbyist who ripped off Native Americans and used freebies for GOP politicians in order to influence them to forget us, the American public and to put in laws in favor of
corporate culture.
The fact that Deborah Howell failed to provide an intelligent argument as well as chickening out on responding, head on, to a debate proves that the truth
does hurt. The world won’t always been seen through rose colored glasses as some of the Bush supporters see, but
it’s starting to realize that we have in office the most stupidest person in the solar system.
Katie Couric was one of my favorite journalists and for her to suck up to the corporate culture of NBC News( Thanks G.E.) has got to be tragic. For a woman who stood up to Ann Coulter a few years ago when Coulter called her “Eva Braun,” and didn’t back down, he conversion to the GOP style of journalism was disappointing. Had Coulter made a snide remark to me, I would have ended the interview, take off the mike and tell the bitch to get her skanky ass out and never come back.
Today, the mainstream media plays the part of the bully. At least with Olbermann we have a friend and a Cronkite disciple. I will continue to watch Olbermann but not everything else. Not even the Today Show. The thing is, everytime we get bullied, sooner or later, we crack and the person who gets hurt the most will be the one doing the bullying.
Think about it.
January 30th, 2006 at 1:27 pmI personally don’t understand the enthusiasm over Katie Couric, or Matt Lauer for that matter. There has to be hundreds of thousands of people that could do what she does. I don’t watch the Today Show, but I’m not a big fan of MS/NBC either. However if Katie is a journalist, a highly paid professional, then she should be held accountable for the truth, and so should the network. I can’t believe Les Moonves is even entertaining the thought of hiring her. She is so yesterday. I’m with Rooney on this one. Do you think if we outsourced our news our media it would be more useful and truthful ;-)
January 30th, 2006 at 2:38 pmI loves me some Krugman. Mmmmm.
January 30th, 2006 at 2:45 pmThank you mr ho. Thanks to the very many of you who post here who provide fresh air to the stench this administration makes us breathe. Being one from a bloody red state, it’s lonely sometimes. Nice to know I’m not alone, even if it is internet interaction! Let’s hope our government doesn’t sully our freedom here.
January 30th, 2006 at 2:58 pmMr. Ho, #11, then you, as a ‘meek’ person, shall inherit the earth! Good post.
January 30th, 2006 at 3:41 pmWouldn’t it be nice if these MSM folks had to admit their ‘mistakes’ and correct their misleading comments on the air that they originally spewed them on.
Yeah, but the evening retraction doesn’t have quite the same ring as the evening news. And anyway, no one will pay attention to the retraction of said BS story because there is another missing white woman, somewhere.
January 30th, 2006 at 4:58 pm