BUSH (1/12/05): Its hard for me to come to a high school class and look at our youngsters and say the Social Security system is in good shape when I understand it's not. To the seniors of America, nothing's going to change when it comes to your Social Security check. But if this Congress doesn't join this administration in working to reform and strengthen Social Security, we will not be able to look at the high school seniors of today and say we have done our duty in protecting Social Security for you; for after all, the system will be bankrupt by the year 2040.Incredible! Social Security will be bankrupt by the year 2040? In fact, according to the CBO, the system will pay full promised benefits through the year 2052—and even after that year, the CBO says, the system will continue paying benefits that are larger than those being paid today! But those high school students didnt know that—and their principal didnt complain when their president vastly misled them. And so they applauded the strange, disturbed man who seems to take his greatest joy from misleading those who most trust him.
And now is the time for the United States Congress to join with the administration to save and strengthen Social Security for generations to come. (Applause.)
And how did your press corps respond to all this? We think you know what your press corps did—they ran to hide behind their desks, pretending that they hadnt noticed Bushs wild misstatements! On Tuesdays NBC Nightly News, David Gregory played tape of Bush at his forum saying that SS would be going flat bust—but the pandering fellow (pet name: Stretch) never told viewers that Bushs statements contradicted all budget projections. Its a simple matter of objective fact: In fact, there is no projection in which SS goes flat bust at any point, let alone in the year 2040. Gregory should have reported those facts. Instead, he played tape of one of Bushs misstatements, then pretended he didnt know how bizarre the statement was. But so it goes as Pandering Pundits help spread their kings disinformation.
Indeed, none of the networks challenged Bushs wild misstatements at Tuesdays forum; none of the networks told their viewers what their strange leader had done. As weve seen, NBC played tape of Bush, then offered no comment about his wild statements. But at ABC, Peter Jennings found a smoother way to cover for dissembling Bush. When he reported on Tuesdays forum, heres what Jennings said:
JENNINGS (1/11/05): We're going to take A Closer Look tonight at the president's plans for changing the Social Security system. In fact, you can expect it fairly often on this broadcast. At the White House today, Mr. Bush warned that Social Security would go bankrupt unless Congress steps in. There is, of course, some argument about that. But there's no question that baby boomers will place great strain on Social Security as they retire. And by 2042, by some measures, the system may not have enough cash to pay full benefits. The president, as you may have heard, wants to let Americans divert some of their Social Security taxes into private investment accounts. And that might cost $2 trillion over ten years, and certainly force some tough choices in Washington. For a take on this, here's ABC's Robert Krulwich.Jennings even said some things that were accurate; specifically, he gave an accurate (if highly truncated) account of what the SS trustees have said. By 2042, by some measures, the system may not have enough cash to pay full benefits, he correctly told ABC viewers. But at that days forum, the president had made wild misstatements about this very matter—statements which were vastly misleading. The great president had made a string of misstatements. All of Bushs wild misstatements needed to be addressed.
So what did Peter Jennings do? Unlike Gregory, he didnt play tape of Bushs wild statements. Instead, he politely cleaned up what Bush had said, offering a blander, vaguer version of Bushs wild misstatements. At the White House today, Mr. Bush warned that Social Security would go bankrupt unless Congress steps in, Jennings politely said. Of course, even that statement would be misleading; SS is never going broke or bankrupt (let alone flat bust), as Bush and Jennings know full well. But Jennings account of what Bush said was vaguer and milder than Bushs wild statements. Jennings avoided the need to challenge Bush by tamping down what had been said.
Again, a note from Earth to the Washington press corps: When a president stages a major forum, then makes wild misstatements about major policy, that will almost always be the biggest news event of the day. When a president baldly misstates basic facts, that is a major news story! But on Tuesday evening, none of the three big networks told their viewers what Bush had done. At NBC, Gregory played tape of one wild statement, then pretended he just didnt notice. But Jennings established a great Peter Principle: Deftly, he sanitized the things Bush had said, pretending the wilder misstatements hadnt happened. And with that action, he joined our list of Pandering Poobahs for Bush:
ADDING JENNINGS TO OUR LIST: Until we come up with a better name, well call them the Pandering Poobahs of Positivity—journalists who refuse to correct wild misstatements by Bush (and as of yesterday, by Cheney). These timid typists seem to feel theyre being paid to see no evil. Bush wildly misstates at a ballyhooed forum? Theyll find slick ways to avoid that fact. Result? Bush goes to a high school the very next day and lies in the face of a bunch of teen-agers! At any rate, here is our list so far. Dont worry—our roster will grow:
Pandering Poobahs of Positivity:DISCOURSE ON METHOD: Lets speak directly to a question of method raised by Kevin Drum and then addressed by Matt Yglesias. There is nothing wrong with objective reporters correcting misstatements by major officials. Indeed, thats one of the things such reporters should do! Jennings and Gregory refused to serve when they failed to report a bit of big news—the fact that Bush had called a conclave, then vastly misstated key facts.
1) Peter Jennings, ABC
2)David Gregory, NBC (Gregorys pet name is Stretch)
Duh! Correcting misstatements by major officials is part of a journalists job description! And they shouldnt feel they have to find a Democratic spokesman to contradict Bush; that is their job as reporters. As we think Michael Kinsley first asked, how stupid would it be to write something like this: Today, George Bush said the earth is flat. A Democratic spokesman quickly challenged him. Objective reporters dont need third parties to interject simple matters of fact.
This fall, it briefly seemed that the Post and the Times had begun to accept these basic points. In response to Bushs campaign dissembling, the papers began to publish reports in which reporters noted the obvious—that public statements by Candidate Bush flew in the face of established facts. When they did so, the reporters in question werent injecting their opinions into news stories. Quite the contrary—they were simply reporting objective facts. Thats what their job calls for.
AS USUAL, BUMILLER AMAZES: The Washington Post did somewhat better in reporting Bushs wild misstatements. On Wednesday, Michael Fletcher reported on the ballyhooed Social Security forum. After quoting some of Bushs wild statements, the Post scribe offered this rebuttal, which included some prime information:
FLETCHER (1/12/05): But some critics say Bush is exaggerating the Social Security problem to build support for his plan for private accounts. For one, they say, the term "bankrupt" does not apply to Social Security. If nothing is done to the system, Social Security could still pay about 73 percent of promised benefits in 2042, when the system's "trust fund" of Treasury bonds will be depleted, Social Security's chief actuary has calculated.Theres lots of info in that passage. But why does Fletcher cite some critics in offering this basic information? In most of this passage, Fletcher is reporting elementary matters of fact. He should do this in his own voice. When he attributes elementary facts to Bushs critics, he makes a simple recitation of fact sound like partisan discourse.
Even after adjusting for inflation, that 27 percent cut in benefits would leave monthly Social Security checks considerably higher than they are now. If nothing is done, a worker retiring in 2055 would receive first-year benefits totaling $16,700 in today's dollars, considerably less than the promised $21,600 but more than today, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
And inevitably, the latest disaster in Gotham! The utterly hapless New York Times assigned Elisabeth Bumiller to this story, and the trembling typist seemed to find it too frightening to deal with Bushs misstatements. Here is her hapless attempt to report on Bushs huge howlers:
BUMILLER (1/12/05): Many Democrats and economists say that Mr. Bush is exaggerating the problem, and that Social Security could be fixed with modest tax increases and a cut in benefits. Even without changes, Mr. Bush's critics say, the system would be able to pay three-quarters of promised benefits four decades from now, when baby boomers have long retired.Incredible! According to this hapless scribe, Bushs critics say SS will be able to pay three-quarters of benefits! But in fact, thats what the SS trustees say, in their official report on the subject—and the CBO says something rosier! Amazing, isnt it? Bumiller takes an official report and treats it like a screed from Bush critics! Question: Why is this hapless, inept, frightened tool still typing for this weak, hopeless newspaper?