#liberal as ever
9 messages in this thread
PMJI, when Noot the Suit sez "socialists" people most American newspaper
editorial boards, he obviously speaks from a skewed vantage point. In truth
most editorial pages around the country (i.e., outside NYC or the Beltway)
support (tacitly when not overtly) many of Gingrich's positions.
As for papers only reporting the Democratic version of events involving the
school lunch program, blame that on the Republicans, who took nearly a week to
get a response together — a weak one, at that. By the way, Gingrich's claim
that the GOP plan increases school lunch funding by 4.5% turns out to be wrong.
Various programs increase from 2 to 4.2 percent per year in the package.
Meaning that inflation about wipes out the increase. Increased need (another
5-6% of needy kids each year) results in kids not getting aid. As I understand
it, that's before a 20 percent scoop that states can take out of the block
grants for any non-nutritional programs they might care to fund.
Compared to Gingrich's dissembling, I much more respect proponents of this plan
who flat out admit they don't think kids need federally subsidized school
breakfasts or lunches whatsoever. I don't agree with 'em, but at least I know
where they're really coming from.
Ron,
It seems to me that people forget that the whole point of all of this, is to
get as many people of of these programs as possible. In order to save OUR
economy, We MUST reduce these outlays now and pay off the debt. There is no
reason to assume that more people will need govt. help next year. If that was
really the reason for all of this debate, then why does the democratic budget
for the school lunch program only call for a 3.1% increase? How can they claim
that a 4.5% INCREASE is a cut??? Because they are assuming that more people
will be on it next year, and the year after that, ect…ect…
As for the 20% "scoop" you talk'd about, I don't know. But i would much rather
have my state run the program than an over bloated, unresponsive, and wasteful
buracracy. At the very least, i would have that much more voice in the matter.
I'll make a deal with you… If the republicans in congress get all of this
passed and our economy doe's not improve in the next few years. Then i'll print
out this message, eat it on camera and send it to you…OK?
—Stephen—
===On AutoPilot 1.77–With Intel "All over my desk"===
We don't need to pay off the debt, we need merely reduce deficits to the point
where the debt load grows more slowly than GDP. Indeed, many economists and
even some conservatives worry that trying to actually balance the budget in the
short term would have devastating side effects that would more than overcome
any benefits.
I've heard those 3.1% vs. 4.5% numbers on Dem vs. GOP school lunch funding
increases, and suffice to say it's conservative rhetoric. Gingrich used the
4.5% number but it turns out to be wrong. Next year's increase overall in the
grant that would include school lunches will be TWO percent. In no year would
any particular component of the block grant rise more than 4.2 percent, but
over the life of the package the total increase would average out to less than
the Dems want, and less than projected need.
It's also fashionable to imagine these days that state governments are more
efficient and dependable than the feds, but that's simplistic in the extreme
and in some cases downright wrong.
Fact is the economy *is* improving at the moment, *before* the GOP tinkering. I
should make you eat your message now. 🙂
"As for papers only reporting the Democratic version of events involving the
school lunch program, blame that on the Republicans"
Oh? If the papers print anything released from administration sources as
though it was the Word directly from God, and Republican statements are ALWAYS
checked against the Democratic people, why SHOULDN'T I blame the papers? I
don't think it is too much to ask that a national newspaper be able to ADD.
In any event, the *point* is that whether or not the 4.5% is an *increase*,
(and talking about how the number of needy kids will automatically go up and
thus it isn't REALLY an increase is simply sophistry), it is still MORE than
the administration was planning to spend. Personally, the numbers indicate
that we are spending FAR too much on these programs, to the point where many
more children are covered than are really needed. But that's another point.
-Karl
Karl,
Come, now. You mean to claim that when the Democrats or the administration
asserts facts, that the press does not attempt to independently assess those
facts or ask the opposition for their viewpoint? That's demonstrably untrue.
I've met many a political reporter (I used to be one — flew on Bob Dole's
campaign plane, once) who wouldn't as a matter of course seek out opposition
views or explanations for something like this. If the opposition isn't prepared
to speak (which occasionally happens, when they're caught off guard or
unavailable), reporters aren't as a rule going to hold the story until they
are. If they did, we'd still be waiting to hear most of what's been published
about Whitewater.
As for doing the math, you should know that the legislation in question isn't
that straightforward; the proposed block grant is quite complex with a number
of components, even if the GOP would have voters believe otherwise. Reporters
are wise to accepting simplistic explanations from politicians trying to put a
good spin on things, but sometimes they don't have immediate alternative
sources, so they go with what they have been able to get and attribute it. In
the case of school lunches, it's already clear that Gingrich used an erroneous
number when he spoke of a 4.5% increase. Just as he used erroneous numbers in
talking about 800 babies landing in dumpsters and an $8 million homeless
shelter in Denver that (according to the Denver Post) simply doesn't exist.
>I've met many a political reporter (I used to be one — flew on Bob Dole's
>campaign plane, once) who wouldn't as a matter of course seek out >opposition
views or explanations for something like this.
Hmmm, first they do, and now they don't? You should decide which side of this
argument you are really taking. As an exercise, try finding ONE article in a
major newspaper that quotes a Republican about ANYTHING, and DOESN'T also have
opposing quotes. It can't be done.
As for the block grants, they are scheduled to go up 4.5% in all future years,
so I guess Newt was just living in the future too much. Too much contact with
certain authors, perhaps. 🙂
-Karl
No, I mistyped. Read "would" in place of "wouldn't."
I've heard politicians from ultra-conservative to radical leftists complaining
about biased media for decades. Perception in these matters is highly
subjective. Politicians of every stripe view the press through strongly tinted
glasses. When every one of these people are mad at a journalist, chances are
he's going about his job in a fair manner.
When the Dems controlled Congress, it was just as easy to complain that they
never got coverage without opposing GOP quotes, and I can think of endless GOP
diatribes in the press last year against "Clintoncare." But guess what? It's
the JOB of a reporter to go find those opposing views, if they exist. If an
idea can't stand the heat of this public policy cauldron, it surely isn't going
to last long in the legislative process, either.
But more to the point, third parties have a much bigger beef than Dems or
Republicans, because they're almost completely ignored. Don't worry, Karl, Dems
and Republicans get plenty of ink, and if the GOP thinks it's slighted, it can
always invite a few dozen more conservative talk show hosts in to the Capitol
basement for free interviews.
However, as a matter of fact, I *have* in recent months seen Republicans
exclusively covered in stories. In fact, there's one in my local paper this
a.m., wherein a state GOP senator here attacks Clinton on an environmental
issue. No retort from the White House is included. That's only one-sided, of
course, if the paper over time (not necessarily in the same story, though that
would be best) gives the opposing side a chance.
But it isn't whether a reaction appears in the same story as over time. Some
reactions simply can't be covered on the same news cycle; the opposition after
all usually needs time to respond, which is why presidents and other
politicians love putting out bad news on the weekend, when it's least likely to
be noticed.
Some crazy politicians I've met (plenty to go around on both sides of the
fence) compare column inches of pro and con coverage, as if that was the
ultimate measure of fairness or objectivity; but by that standard, the flat
earthers would get ink every time NASA launches a space shuttle.
For better or worse, the more important a public figure is, the more he is
sought out by the press, as Gingrich discovered at first to his delight and
then to his chagrin. The bigger you are, the more your every word weighs. The
more controversial your comments, the more likely it is contrary views will
turn up. That's part of the the "man bites dog" definition of news. When
Clinton says things are great and Dole says they're lousy, Dole will get a
bigger headline every time. And vice versa.
But your main point is that the press is disposed toward liberalism. Ask a
conservative to name a liberal journalist, and two times out of three these
days they cite Cokie Roberts, who, as I distinctly recall, suggested on David
Brinkley's show a few weeks back that Clinton should move to the right. The
newspapers in the hinterlands are by and large Republican backers. Even the
beltway insiders have the Washington Times, and New York City both the
conservative Daily News and Murdoch's right-wing Post, which outsell the Times.
In my experience, most reporters (and most of them don't cover politics) are
apolitical, which is why they became reporters. They're voyeurs, not doers.
Those few that have a political agenda either become publishers or leave the
profession eventually to get their hands directly on the issues. The rest
mostly just love to write.
A number of conservative institutions made a conscious and deliberate effort
starting in the '70s to recruit political kindred to the journalism profession,
in an effort to redress what Nixon saw as his prime enemy, the press.
Conservative think tanks to this day help underwrite journalism programs and
scholarships for right-thinking reporters, and the right wing press (such as
the American Spectator) get far more help from conservative foundations than
liberal rags get from liberal foundations. At least one flaming conservative
worked for years as an editor on a news desk alongside of me; though he was as
far to the right politically as I was to the left, we got along fine and
together helped put out a damn good big city daily, which never in its history
endorsed any candidate other than a Republican for president.
If your paper only endorsed Republicans for president, a damn fine paper
it was/is. Keep up the great work. <grin>
– Alex…. Still Whap!'n after all these years