HONESTY! Ohhh jeeez! Wed had our fill of this channels dishonesty maybe like ten years go: // link // print // previous // next //
THURSDAY, APRIL 2, 2009
Most successful con of our time: Here at THE HOWLER, we learned the logic of Social Security from reading Dean Bakers invaluable bookmore precisely, from reading Social Security: The Phony Crisis, the invaluable book Baker co-wrote with Mark Weisbrot. On Tuesday, Baker offered this blog post about the current decline in SS receiptsthe decline the Washington Post had reported on that day. (For our own post, see THE DAILY HOWLER, 3/31/09.) Will this recession-driven decline in receipts speed the day when the SS trust fund is depleted? Baker says it will, but it wont be that bad. (Careful! When Baker refers to the year 2040, he is presumably using CBO projections. The official projections of the SS trustees are gloomier.)
But we arent writing about Bakers post were writing about his commenters. Good God! In the modern world, you can count on death and taxesand on immediate comments like this, just the third one his readers recorded. The first two comments were made by a reader who didnt know what trust fund meant. For the record, the third commenter didnt know either. Well clarify what he said:
You can count on death and taxes. And you can count on hearing those scripted complaints. They reflect the most successful piece of political propaganda of the past fifty years.
These ideas have been crammed into everyones minds. Everybody knows to say it! The Social Security trust fund is just a pile of worthless IOUs. (The money isnt thereits already been spent.) Indeed, Bakers fifth commenter posted a near-variant:
Politicians cant keep their hands off that money! For that reason, its already been spent!
Its true, of course, that the SS surpluses of the past twenty years (the so-called trust fund) have been borrowed and spent. (Thats the system Congress put in place when it raised payroll taxes in the 1980s.) But then, the federal government borrows lots of money, from lots of sources, and all of that money has been spent! Duh. The government doesnt borrow money so members of Congress can sit and stare at it. They dont just let it sit in a vault until they have to pay it back. The government borrows money from the SS trustees and from Chinese banksand all the money gets spent! Thats why the money is borrowed!
Could we conduct a thought experiment about this remarkable bit of misdirection?
The federal government has borrowed lots of money from Chinese banks down through the years. When those loans come due and must be repaid, do you think the feds will say this to the Chinese: The money isnt thereweve already spent it? Theres just a pile of worthless IOUs in your account? Of course they wont say any such thingtheyll repay whats due, then borrow some more. (Assuming we havent gone into balance.) But the same process obtains with the money thats borrowed from the SS trust fund.
You may not like the fact that the government borrowsbut thats a separate question. Theres nothing magical about the money borrowed from the SS trust fundnothing that sets it apart from all the other money the government borrows. And yet, a remarkable piece of propaganda was invented decades ago, and it has now wormed its way into the hearts of the populace. Bakers post proves it again: You simply cant discuss Social Security without someone reciting the points which have fueled this long campaign. Indeed, young people are sure theyll never see a penny of Social Security because of this long, slick effort.
This must be the greatest piece of political propaganda of the last fifty yearsthe greatest bit of misdirection conceived in that period. Everyone has heard the talking-points. Volunteers rush forward to state them.
So how about it? Is it true? Is the trust fund nothing but worthless IOUs? Heres the answer to that question: People! Go ask the Chinese!
PART 4HONESTY: Are you really involved in a Truman show when you watch GEs cable news programs? (See THE DAILY HOWLER, 4/1/09.) Last night, our analysts mordantly chuckled when one host interrupted his show with a programming note about the other. (Surprise! Our own Richard Wolffe had been this hosts first guest!) What was coming up in the next hour? MSNBCs 5 million dollar man delivered some Trumanesque promo :
As is his normal practice, Olbermann wasnt quite being truthful with those pleasing remarks. Except in The Land of the Hyperbolic, Powell didnt absolutely rip into this new GOP budget plan in his session with Rachel Maddow although the promise of such entertainment may have kept a few rubes around as the evening moved forward. Of course, our analysts didnt know that yet; they simply chuckled at the focus Olbermann placed on the upcoming interview. How many liberals give a rats keister about Powells view of the House budget plan? Well guess the answer is zero. For ourselves, we were wondering if he would be asked about his pre-Iraq UN presentation. Others were wondering if he would be asked about his possible involvement in war crimes.
Powell was going to absolutely rip into the new GOP budget plan? We chuckled at the careless way these cable actors will sometimes promote their programs. (Such small mistakes first tipped Truman Burbank that he was involved in a show.) At any rate, Powell didnt absolutely rip the House GOP plan. In the one Q-and-A on the subject, Powell didnt seem to know what was in the planand Maddow didnt bother to tell him. But these liberal cable news shows exist to make money for the corporation; in the case of MSNBCs current shows, that money is made by the sale of comfort food to us liberals. If it sounds good to liberals and Democrats, say it! Surely, no real progressive gives a fig about Powells view of Boehners new plan. But Powell ripping-the-plan sounded good, so a big corporate crap-monger pimped it.
Olbermann, of course, has become a clowna parody of the cable news barker. He rarely wastes his time with the truth. But uh-oh! Last week, we were sorry to see Maddows honesty slide into a similar zone. Sorryand deeply annoyed.
When you watch these liberal shows, do GEs anchors feel the need to tell you things which are accurate?
Consider the long, loud segment Maddow did last Thursday night, concerning that same GOP budget plan (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 4/1/09). On this day, House GOP leaders had announced their intention to release a full budget plan. Maddow spent a very long segment explaining how foolish this strategy was. These leaders had stupidly taken the bait, Maddow repeatedly said.
The segment was long and extremely gruesomean insult to her viewers intelligence. The snark was flying thick and fast as Maddow rolled her Rs, clapped her hands and shouted clownish paraphrases of sensible things Obama had saidgesticulating colorfully as she did so, of course. (As you know, Theres a lot of different ways to talk about stuff and Americans absorb things in a lot of different ways.) But the basic premise of her long segment was just as odd as her personal conduct. In Maddows telling, the House GOP had acted like fools in deciding to offer their own budget plan. They had taken the bait from Obama, the cable performer now said.
Thats right! Obama had challenged Republicans to present a planand the House GOP had taken the bait. Heres how Maddow started her segment. Snark began filling the room :
Huh! According to Maddow, the House Republicans had taken some sort of baithad fallen for one of the oldest tricks in the book. As she continued, she explained what sort of bait theyd swallowedshouting a very loud paraphrase of Obama, a fisher of men, as she did:
Sensibly enough, Obama had asked his Republican critics to present their own budget plan. Now, the House GOP had said it would do so. Youd think a news person would compliment a group of pols for putting their ideas on the line. But to Maddow, this was the dumbest thing ever done. The rest of us learn to avoid this sort of blunder in grade school, the cable host said.
Lets be clear: Maddow wasnt criticizing the House GOP for failing to present a full budget. (They had promised to present their full budget numbers in a week.) Quite plainly, she was criticizing them for being stupid enough to present an alternative budget at all. This was the worlds dumbest move, she insisted, gesticulating and clapping her hands, thereby entertaining us rubes. And then, she made a claim which heightened the snarka pleasing claim which was baldly false. In a slightly less rarified world, wed say that she lied in your faces:
You can watch the tape of last Thursdays program to see Maddow patiently telling us how this Strategy 101" works ( just click here ). The House GOP were the worlds dumbest bunnies for rejecting the normal minority tactic, she said. Instead of picking apart Obamas plan, they had stupidly taken the baithad agreed to offer a plan of their own. How dumb did this make the House GOP? Just one week earlier, Maddow herself had asked ODonnell if they would take the bait, she now triumphantly said.
Except that isnt what Maddow had said (on March 16). She hadnt said that at all.
What had Maddow actually said when ODonnell appeared on her March 16 program? She had sensibly suggested, again and again, that Republicans had an obligation to present their own budget plan. Three separate times, she seemed to say this; three separate times, ODonnell told her that this isnt the normal tactic. You can read the transcript of this exchange ( just click here ). But this synopsis of the March 16 segment appeared on the Maddow Show web site:
In fact, Maddow had criticized the GOP for failing to present its own plan. And one week later, on March 23, she sensibly criticized them once again for failing to present their own budget. This is what Maddow had really been saying for several weeks at this point :
That was a thoroughly sensible presentation. The host had a perfectly sensible complaint: Republicans were savaging Obamas proposals without proposing any alternatives. But then, this was the same approach she had taken on March 16, with ODonnell. This is a thoroughly sensible approach. We agree with this position.
For more than a week, shed been sensibly saying it: Republicans should present their own plan. But uh-oh! Three nights later, snarking wildly, Maddow went on the air and pretended that she had been saying something completely different. She now said the House GOP leaders were the worlds biggest foolsbecause they had done the very thing she had said they should do all along! As she snarked and shouted and clapped her handsas she rolled her Rs and paused for her punsshe told us rubes that shed asked ODonnell, ten days before, if the GOP would take the bait. But that wasnt what she had said at all. Her position had been just the opposite.
Some of you will want to believe that Maddow really meant something different last Thursdaythat she was criticizing the House GOP leaders because their plan wasnt yet complete. We know how much you want to believe thatbut that simply isnt what she was saying. Go aheadwatch the tape of this long, snarky segment. We think youll see she was mocking the Republican leaders for offering a plan at all. That simply isnt the normal tactic, she all-knowingly said. She didnt mock them for leaving out numbers. She mocked them because their proposals and policies would be less attractive than Obamas.
We started this web site, long ago, because we refused to take it any more (refused to be a fool, in Don Corleones wordsbecause we were sick of seeing overpaid corporate hacks come into our home each weekday night and lie right straight in our faces. We were tired of seeing them make up silly sh*t; we were tired of seeing them mug and clown and prance around on the air each evening. Las tweek, Maddows loud, high-decibel conduct was highly reminiscent of those bad old daysthe bad old days of the Wars Against Clinton and Gore, the wars the career liberal world accepted. In those days, General Electrics cable arm was working hard against Big Dems; for whatever reason, the GE channel is now pimping hard in the other direction. But last week, Maddow was selling the same kind of sh*t her network sold you ten years ago. The targets had changed, but the clowning continued. As did the blatant misstatements.
For the record, Maddows long segment on March 26 was exceptionally unenlightening. Maddow sells herself as a policy geek, but she and her staff arent strong on domestic politics; her work on the current budget wars has been weak in a wide range of ways (more tomorrow). Most amazing, though, was the stunning way she mugged and clowned all through that long segment. The only thing that was more striking was the way she lied in your face. We had seen that earlier segment with ODonnell. We recalled what this mugging host said.
Sorry, but no: Maddow didnt ask ODonnell if he thought that Republicans would take the bait and propose their own budget. Her position had been just the opposite; she had said, again and again, that Republicans should offer a budget. But last Thursday, she and her staff had dreamed up some new snarksome new comfort food theyd decided to sell you. House GOP leaders were very dumb to take the bait and propose a budget, Maddow now snarked. And, to take the snark a bit higher, she pretended shed said this same thing all along. But she hadnt done thatnot even close. Frankly, shed said just the opposite.
Sorry, kids: Olbermann may be a fallen man. But as of last Thursday night, Maddow was sinking too. Last Friday night, she extended this pattern with a remarkably disingenuous segment about that OCO nonsense. (I like saying OCO, she now self-indulgently said.) Shed made a mistake last Tuesday night (everyone does)but she didnt seem to want to say so. We dont think weve ever seen anyone work so hard to avoid correcting an error.
Well take a quick look at that tomorrow. It too was a notable segment, because it was so disingenuous.
In the 1990s, MSNBC warred against both Clintons, then it went to war against Gore. It sells its comforts to us liberals nowbut very few procedures have changed. This is a money-grubbing, corporate outfit.and they dont give a fig about your national culture. They make big bucks selling snark to rubes. We long to believe what they tell us.
Tomorrow: Epilog: Why does this matter?