cross-posted from penigma
The Tea Partiers, and other conservatives and low-information voters seem to have some strange ideas about wasteful government spending -- and equally mistaken ideas about the savings by equivalent providers in the private sector.
The reality of that was demonstrated by the preceding POGO report.
And the way the right wing media contributes to that misinformation, disinformation, is shameful.
An example has been Bill O 'Reilly of Fox News who early on made an honest mistake in his statements, but so far as I could tell, he did so without any critical examination, any questioning if it was true or accurate.
When I first came across the story, having arranged my share of meetings in my day, I wondered immediately if this was a case of the labeling for the expense being a catch all term for the expenses per person - which is what turned out to be the case. There was no consideration for the other side of the story - the more complete explanation - just repeatedly O'Reilly and other entertainment pundits pounded on this faux fact.
What is more significant to me is that as the real story came to light, as the news presented by less partisan media reported the facts of the $16 conference charge.
But not O'Reilly, as reported here on politifact.com, and on an appearance on the Daily show.
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Bill O'Reilly | ||||
| ||||
The problem is the persistent lack of correction. There was no update, no correction, no walk-back here - OR ANYWHERE. John Stossel joined in with the $16 muffin story here. And Stuart Varney of Fox here - well AFTER the AP had reported the real news, the factual information.
It isn't just the media that perpetuates these falsehoods; we also have Senator Chuck Grassley, reported here, long after the truth was out. Grassley went so far as to demand, bombastically, for the firing of the person who made those conference arrangements - despite the fact that by doing so, he actually contracted for services cheaper than were available otherwise. Grassley is an extremist right-wing ideologue from Iowa, who is on a par with Michele Bachmann (both were born in Iowa - maybe being factually inaccurate is an Iowa thing). He doesn't give a damn what he says so long as it serves his political narrative.
So....how bad was this misreporting by the right?
According to a story on Huffington Post, there were 178 stories perpetuating the wrong version of events, but only 37 stories which corrected it. That tracks pretty darn well with my own searches for posted stories and corrections.
This has not ONLY been a problem for the $16 bogus muffin story; this is an example of a larger problem, as I have tried to report here many times. The 'snow plow slowdown' was another example that springs to mind, or any of the false voter fraud stories, or the Breitbart/O'Keefe ACORN story. It tends to be the case with EVERY story, varying only in degree HOW wrong it is.
That the facts will be wrong has - in my experience - been true of the right wing media, the right wing politicians, and especially of the right wing blogosphere.
Again, it raises two questions. WHY does the right media and blogosphere condone such abysmally low standards and lack of ethics for their sources of information? And why do these same people on the right not do their OWN fact checking, given this deplorable track record for factual information. There is no way to solve a problem without accurate information and accurate context.
So, either the right really isn't interested in participating in solving our national problems, or they are happily willing to put partisan rhetoric and false narratives over reality. There seems an element of malice in at least some of it, rather than honest error. Either way, this is unacceptable from our electorate, and we are past due for regular and frequent reality checks. Most of all, there is money, filthy lucre, shameless profit that requires the devil's bargain of sacrificing integrity.
Yup really disconnected, wait till 2013'
ReplyDeleteReid's ‘nuclear option’ changes rules, ends repeat filibusters
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/186133-reid-triggers-nuclear-option-to-change-senate-rules-and-prohibit-post-cloture-filibusters
Hooray for Reid! The Republicans have abused the filibuster procedure for too darn long.
ReplyDeleteI read the whole Hill post, fringie; not so sure you did, as the entirety does not really say what I think you believe it to say:
"“We are fundamentally turning the Senate into the House,” he cried on the Senate floor. “The minority’s out of business.”
One Democratic source noted that former Republican Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (Miss.) used Reid’s nuclear tactic on May 17, 2000, when he overturned a ruling from the chair to ban non-germane sense-of-the-Senate amendments from being offered to appropriations bills.
Reid defended his action as necessary because filibusters and other dilatory actions have tied the Senate up in knots. Many junior members of his caucus, such as Sens. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), have become extremely frustrated by the length of time it takes to even complete the chambers routine business."
What these paragraphs state is that even McConnell is acknowledging that the House Republican majority has changed the rules, and not abided by the ones it claimed it would follow. The House IS unfair to the house minority; the Senate has put up with obstruction by the right.
Reid was factual, and reasonable, whether McConnell agreed with him or not.
To illustrate WHY it is that Reid was being fact based and reasonable, and it is McConnell who is not, I suggest you look at the table midway down the page here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster_in_the_United_States_Senate
You are appearing to complain about a procedural move that Republicans have used - with far less justification.
Double standard much Fringie? Yes you do.
Come on, Dog Gone, you can't expect Fringy to think, let alone come up with a coherent thought.
ReplyDelete"Honest" mistakes and errors are made by people who are given bad information by those in a positon of authority--who have a history of being honest--and are assured that it's been vetted for accuracy and lack of bias.
ReplyDeletePeople parroting agitprop from unquestionably biased sources are lying.