DRINKING OUR FORMULA! Saint McCain gets a pass in the Timesand our nation gets dumbed a bit more: // link // print // previous // next //
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 3, 2009
Mike Dugans brilliant joke: On this mornings Morning Joe, Afghanistan got its first (fleeting) mention at 6:15fifteen minutes in.
What had the gang been discussing instead? Mainly, Tigers love life.
We recalled Mike Dugans brilliant joke, which we came to admire during the 1990s.
For various reasons, its a joke we ourselves wouldnt tell. That said, the joke, which concerns the right to choose, wasand isquite brilliant. As we recall, the punch line went something like this: Personally, I think life begins at the point when you learn how to mind your own business.
We wouldnt tell that joke ourselvesbut its brilliant all the same. (There are also brilliant conservative jokes.) We thought of that joke as we watched the fools cluck about Tiger this morning.
A nation cant survive this way. Have you noticed your nation is dying?
As presented by Comedy Central: To see Dugans joke as presented by Comedy Central, you know what to do: Just click here.
DRINKING OUR FORMULA: We recalled the days before THE HOWLER when we read David Herszenhorns fumbling piece in todays New York Times.
(For a longer version of Herszenhorns piece, just click this. Below, we present the text as it appears in todays hard-copy Times.)
In his report, Herszenhorn discusses the cuts to future Medicare spending which are proposed in the Senate health bill. But first, he discusses the spending cuts Candidate McCain proposed last year. Essentially, the piece considers a basic question: Are McCain and Obama behaving like hypocrites on this matter? Have they simply swapped sides in this part of the health care debate, now that Obama is president?
MEDICARE: Role Reversal, says the hard-copy headline. Herszenhorns report isnt all that long. But we groaned every step of the way.
How poorly do journalists know how to explain things? How well do they know how to stick to a formula? Lets walk through this short hard-copy report, which starts with these two paragraphs:
Basic info: As a candidate, McCain proposed spending cuts of $882 billion over ten years. As a candidate, Obama said those spending cuts would likely require cuts in benefits, eligibility or both.
So far, so goodalthough a rather basic piece of information has already been excluded (see below). The problem begins when Herszenhorn describes what Obama is supporting now:
Absent some sort of explanation, McCain certainly seems like a hypocrite here. He proposed spending cuts which were nearly twice the size of those found in the current bill. Now, he is attacking the Democrats for seeking much smaller spending cutsincluding some of the very same cuts he proposed last year!
Absent some sort of explanation, its hard to see why we shouldnt regard McCain as a hypocrite. But quite plainly, Herszenhorns piece isnt about McCainits about McCain and Obama, the participants in his headlined, alleged Role Reversal. Alas! Herszenhorns piece follows a familiar journalistic template, in which the weary reporter sighs about the phoniness of All These Pols, Who Are Exactly The Same. To maintain this tired old format, Herszenhorn must sigh about Obama too. Obama must be McCains equal-but-opposite. And so, we get this presentation about Obama: He complained about spending cuts back then. But hes proposing them now!
Absent some sort of explanation, McCain does look like a hypocrite. But should Obama be paired with McCain, as Herszenhorn so plainly has done? Absent some sort of explanation, we cant imagine why. As Herszenhorn notes, McCains proposed spending cuts were much larger than those now being proposed. Isnt it possible that McCains spending cuts would have led to cuts in Medicare serviceswhile the smaller Senate spending cuts will not?
Obviously, thats entirely possible. But Herszenhorn is applying a formulaa tired old formula at that. In order for his formula to obtain, he has to pair the former rivalsthrow them together into the briars. McCain has flipped, the weary scribe writesbut then too, so has Obama! This pairing sustains a tired old formulaand produces a gong-show report.
Question: Why didnt the New York Times present a report about McCain alone? The depth of McCains apparent hypocrisy seems evident as Herszenhorn labors on:
Clearly, McCain is behaving like a major hypocrite, absent some further explanation. But the Times didnt run a stand-alone piece examining McCains behavior. Instead, they threw Obama into the stew, suggesting that his conduct is somehow the equivalent of McCains. Sorry. Absent further explanation, it simply isnt.
When we read this groaning report, we recalled the bungled, two-year Medicare debate of the mid-1990s. At the time, President Clinton had proposed future spending cuts to the programand the Republican Congress had proposed much larger spending cuts. Clinton argued that the GOPs spending cuts were too largethat they would force unacceptable cuts in Medicare services. But instead of examining Clintons claim, the press corps spent two gruesome years in a ludicrous semantic debate, a debate which was directly hatched within the RNC. Hmmmm: Were Republicans really proposing Medicare cuts? Or were they simply slowing the rate at which the program would grow? Night after night, for two solid years, compliant, low-IQ mainstream journalists went on TV and tried to puzzle that outwith no success, we might add.
(In a brilliant piece of reporting, Maraniss and Weisskopf described the way the GOP bullied the press corps into this nonsense in their clumsily-titled 1996 book, Tell Newt to Shut Up. Their on-the-record interviews went all the way up to Haley Barbour, then the RNCs chairman. They produced a brilliant report about the way a compliant Washington press corps was bending to GOP power. For three reports on this two-year gong-show, see THE DAILY HOWLER, 8/20/99.)
Herszenhorns piece today is a groaner. Its possible that Obama is being a hypocrite herebut absent some further explanation, it seems clear that McCain is. If a news org were willing to play it straight, it would present a stand-alone report about McCains remarkable reversalMcCains conduct, nobody elses. The report would offer a bit more detail about the solons apparent flip-flop. It would report the explanations he gave when he was asked about his reversal.
But alas! Two things are missing from Herszenhorns report, aside from the courage to challenge McCain straight up and the intelligence required to do a competent report on this fascinating topic:
First, McCains explanations arent offered at all! Indeed, there is no sign that the great Saint McCain was ever asked to explain his conduct! Just a guess: McCain still rides the Straight Talk Express in the hearts of some reporters and news orgs. A further guess: The GOP power to which news orgs bowed in the mid-1990s is still haunting their sleep.
For the record, something else is missing herean obvious bit of context. The Senate bill proposes spending cuts of almost $500 billion over ten years. McCain proposed cuts of $882 billion. But just how large are those proposed cuts, when compared to the overall size of the Medicare program?
You cant start to answer that obvious question unless someone tells you how much money will be spent on Medicare overall during that ten-year period. Question: Have you ever seen anyone include that basic information when they discuss this matter? Projected ten-year Medicare spending is an obvious part of this story. Except for one thing: Your press corps cant explain sh*t.
Saint McCain gets a pass todayand Sinner Obama gets thrown in a stew. A tired old formula get doled out again. And your nation gets dumbed a bit more.