NO THEY CANT! How much pork is in that bill? Some, the Post has now said: // link // print // previous // next //
FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2009
Mufson has heard: Once in a while, the cohort surprises. So lets give credit to the Posts Steven Mufson for offering this 1600-word analysis of the effectiveness of the New Deal. Mufsons piece appeared yesterday, on page one of the Posts Business section.
Were not experts on such matters; there may be shortcomings in Mufsons analysis of which were unaware. Readers, nothing is perfect! But Mufson surprised us with his detailed critique of a major claima claim which has been driving the public discussion. More often, big journalists seem to be living on Mars; they seem to take pride in avoiding the debates which are actually driving the discourse. Rush and Drudge say somethingand millions believe them. Inside their palaces, journos take pride in acting like they havent heard.
Claims have been widespread about the New Deal. At the Post, Mufson has heard.
NO THEY CANT: The Beltway press corps doesnt do policy. So Eric Boehlert.notes in this post; he then links to this new study concerning the role of economists in TV discussions of the stimulus package. We recommend that you review that study, but lets go straight to the barrels bottom: So far, Hardball has featured 46 guests in discussions of the stimulus package. Only one of the 46 guests was an economist, this new study says.
Hardball has featured one economist! And that economist was Dick Armey, who ought to be famous for having said, in his unintentionally comical book, The Flat Tax, that the flat tax is progressive. (It was number two in his list of Frequently Asked Questions: Is the flat tax progressive? Sure it is.) But then, we all have lived, for at least twenty years, in a gong show wrapped in a mystery, inside a hall of mirrors. We think that new study from Media Matters helps show where we all live.
Pseudo-discussion occurs each night; we saw this again last evening when a passenger plane crashed in Buffalo. On cable, all other discussion was wiped rom the map. That circumstance continued this morning, and the reason for it is clear: No other discussion had been occurring; it had all been pseudo, right from the start. As soon as pictures of flames could be shown, other discussions were dropped, like a rock. Grateful pundits launched a new pseudo-discussion. But this one, at least, came with pictures.
Boehlerts new study concerns TV. But lets be frankyour most famous American newspapers arent up to discussions of policy either. Just consider the groaning report by Dan Eggen in todays Post.
Eggens piece bears an intriguing headline: Despite Pledges, Package Has Some Pork. As every sentient human must know, that headline reflects a ubiquitous talking-point, one which has driven discussion of the stimulus package over the past several weeks. Is the stimulus package a big Christmas tree, laden with ornaments made out of lard? Republicans have persistently made this claim. But to date, this ubiquitous claim has met with little scrutiny inside the press corps. The Beltway press corps doesnt do policy, just as Boehlert says.
Today, the Post has offered a news report which directly addresses this central assertion! And in the process, the Post has shown that it too is part of a hapless elitea low-grade journalistic elite which is simply too dumb to do policy.
How weak is Eggens effort? Again, lets consider that eye-catching headline. Despite Pledges, Package Has Some Pork, it saysand yet, the word some is quite vague. Presumably, this could have become the day when the Post performed a basic service; this could have been the day when Republican critics were asked to quantify this central complaint. How much of the package do they claim to be pork? Might we even imagine the use of some numbers? Not in the world of your D-plus elite! Heres what happens when Eggen cites this Republican complaint, complete with Democratic rebuttals. Go ahead! Try to spot a single number anywhere in this mess:
According to Eggen, many Republicans say the bill is still larded with wasteful spending. But he asks no one to offer a guess as to what percentage of the bill is so larded, and he simply quotes the bills defenders calling this complaint overheated. Stone at least is quoted saying that the overwhelming bulk of the spending in the package is sound. But even after all these weeks, it doesnt occur to the gang at the Post that statements this vague lack almost all meaningor that the bills attackers should be asked to offer some sort of list (with a total price tag) of the provisions they say are just lard. But then, people like Eggen arent real good with numbers. Look what happens at the start of the piece, when he gives examples of the types of provisions with which hes concerned. While youre at it, note the utterly ridiculous opening premise:
How much pork exists in this bill? Judging from this puzzling effort, a person might think there cant be much. Good grief! By paragraph 4, Eggen and his editors are reduced to citing a provision concerning small shipyardsa provision which constitutes roughly one eight-thousandth of the bills total cost. Beyond that, they make no attempt to explain why this provision should be regarded as pork, the blood-stirring word which tops this report. Whose pet project is this provision? What is supposed to be wrong with the project? Quite literally, no attempt is made to answer these questions. But then, note Eggens opening premisea premise which gets transformed in the Posts unfortunate headline. According to Eggen, this weeks compromise bill is not free of spending that benefits specific communities, industries or groups. The reader is left to imagine what sort of bill could be free of such provisions.
Again: By paragraph 4, Eggen is citing a provision which represents one-eight thousandth of this bills total cost. (Thats roughly 0.013 percent.) How much pork could be in this bill? It doesnt seem to occur to Eggen that his evidence suggests an answer: Not much!
Despite Pledges, Package Has Some Pork, the Post headline pathetically cries. But some is an extremely vague word, and even now, at this late date, it doesnt seem to occur to the Post that critics of the billor major reportersmight be expected to make an attempt at quantifying so widespread and central a claim. Even now, at this late date, after weeks of complaints from the bills defenders, Eggen doesnt seem to have asked Republican critics to attempt some sort of quantification. There is some pork, the headline cries. This leads to a sad conclusion:
This is a very dumb piece of work. Its the type of work which is routinely done by an exceptionally dumb journalistic cohorta cohort which doesnt do policy.
Its rude in our culture to say such things. But Chris Matthews is paid $5 million per yearand on cable, he has offered the worlds dumbest discourse. Today, the Post tries to go him one better.
How much pork can be found in that bill? Some, the Washington Post has now said. The Post is our most important political newspaper. In a world run by such hapless elites, can a nation survive?
Still coming: Yes, we plan to finish our special report, the one called Snorter McWhorter (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 2/5/09). Weve postponed Part 4 each day this week. Lets plan to go there on Monday.