Reporters tend to bristle when media critics refer to them as "stenographers." But Paul Kane of the Washington Post provides a pretty clear illustration of where that criticism comes from. Here's something Kane said during an online discussion Kane participated in today (the discussion carries tomorrow's date, but tomorrow hasn't occurred yet, so please believe me when I say it took place today):
Paul Kane: We reported what Olympia Snowe said. That's what she said. That's what Republicans are saying. I really don't know what you want of us.
Got that? Olympia Snowe said something, Paul Kane wrote it down, and he doesn't know what more anyone could want from him.
Well, it isn't very complicated: Context. That's what people want. Like the fact that Olympia Snowe had previously voted to do exactly what Kane quotes her criticizing -- that's useful context.
And that's the difference between "journalism" and "stenography."
Here's the full question-and-answer:
New York, N.Y.: Paul, do you care to defend yourself against this criticism from Media Matters?
"In an April 9 article about Democrats' legislative priorities, The Washington Post wrote, 'Democrats are sure to incite Republicans if they adopt a shortcut that would allow them to pass major health-care and education bills with just 51 votes in the Senate, where Democrats are two seats shy of the filibuster-proof margin of 60 seats. The rule, known as 'reconciliation,' would fuel GOP charges that (President) Obama has ditched bipartisanship.' The article, by Paul Kane and Shailagh Murray, then quoted Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) saying, 'If they exercise that tool, it's going to be infinitely more difficult to bridge the partisan divide.' However, Kane and Murray did not mention that congressional Republicans -- including Snowe herself -- voted to allow the use of the budget reconciliation process to pass major Bush administration initiatives. Indeed, Murray herself noted in an April 1 article that '(a)dvocates defend reconciliation as a legitimate tool used more often by Republicans in recent years, most notably to pass President George W. Bush's tax cuts.' "
Paul Kane: I'm sorry, what's to defend?
Someone tell Media Matters to get over themselves and their overblown ego of righteousness. We reported what Olympia Snowe said. That's what she said. That's what Republicans are saying. I really don't know what you want of us. We are not opinion writers whose job is to play some sorta gotcha game with lawmakers.
That's what columns and blogs are for. Look, Republcians will take reconciliation as a serious poison pill to Obama's so-called bipartisan/post-partisan era. The Republicans did this, in the most direct correlation, with welfare in the mid-90s. And Democrats took it as a vicious partisan maneuver.
That's what is happening, that's what we reported. [Emphasis added]
Beutler (TPM): You Can Lead A Reporter to Water, But You Can't Make Him Call It A Spending Increase
They just can't help themselves! In a live Q&A session today, a reader asked Washington Post Congressional reporter Paul Kane a question that's been on our minds for days now. "I keep hearing the term 'budget cuts,' but the defense budget isn't being cut at all," the reader writes. "Money is being redirected to other defense priorities, but the overall budget is increasing by 4%.... So why is it that certain pols are allowed to spout this inane lie with impunity."
Kane didn't respond to that question, but he did explain that Gates is trying to spend money more wisely...albeit amid a four percent budget cut that's not actually happening.
If I spend $100,000 a year, and I spend it on a whole bunch of garbage -- CDs from stupid American Idol contestants, trips to Atlantic City, etc. -- it's a whole lot better for me if I reorient my budget to spend my money on a downpayment for a new house at a cutrate deal, as well as Springsteen CDs (instead of Idol folks) and trips of value to see friends and family. I might still spend $96,000, but I've spent it a lot more wisely.That's what Gates is trying to do.
Ummm. Ok. I'm as big a Springsteen fan as anybody. But if we're sticking with this analogy, then the idea is that Gates is buying so many Springsteen CDs this year that he's actually increasing his annual spending to $104,000. A four percent growth, as the reader noted. At about $20 a pop, that's a lot of copies of Nebraska--which may or may not be worth it, but, to quote Paul, that's what Gates is trying to do.
- Beutler: Retired Admiral And Current House Dem Pushes Back On 'Cuts' Meme
You probably haven't seen too many mainstream media reports of politicians arguing convincingly in favor of Gates' defense overhaul, but Rep. Joe Sestak (D-PA) did just that on Morning Joe earlier today. Watch:
The capsule version is this: Sestak first corrected Joe Scarborough's assertion that the Gates plan amounts to spending cuts, and then went on to defend the overhaul on the merits (why we don't need to buy an extra handful of multi-billion dollar ships, but should modernize the existing fleet, etc.) and to accurately characterize the looming, sure-to-be bruising battle in Congress.
This is important coming from Sestak, for a few reasons. He's a member of the House Armed Services Committee. He's a young legislator, but very well regarded by his peers. He's a retired Admiral (the highest-ranking officer ever elected to Congress), so he knows a thing or two about what the military does and doesn't need. And though his state and his district stand to lose lucrative contracts under the Gates plan he's nonethelessrather enthusiastic about it.
Sestak serves in the Pennsylvania delegation alongside powerful Rep. Jack Murtha (D-PA), a former marine, who chairs the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, and who released a lukewarm statement about the budget proposal earlier this week--so we'll keep an eye on his role in the proceedings.
Digby caught an amazing exchange on CNN (which you can watch here):
Thelma Guttierez: Fear for people like Mildred Copeland, who’s 84 and still waiting tables after 34 years.
[....]
Ali Velshi: That woman who you had in your story, the woman who’d been a waitress, I almost wonder whether people who live close to the edge, but don’t carry a lot of debt are not as affected by this recession. They’ve sort of been living in that state for a while. There’s not a lot of room they’ve had to fall.
Guttierez: Ali, you’re absolutely right. I think that’s the lesson here. You look at somebody like Mildred, she’s 84 years old. She’s still waiting tables, but she’s doing it to supplement her social security income. The most important thing here is that she has no mortgage..
Ali: right ..
Guttierez: She doesn’t have the monkey on her back that we all have and so she doesn’t have to worry. She feels that she can move through this crisis because she lives simply, she was able to pay off her house, and she doesn’t have the big worry so many people out there have, which is mortgage.
A lot of what is wrong with our public discourse is summarized by this exchange. Once you accept the fact that 84 year-olds who are forced to wait tables to make ends meet are lucky people, it’s a short step to thinking that anyone who would want to do something to help the working poor must not be “normal“. And it’s hard to imagine that t v anchors would talk this way if they made less money and identified less with the wealthy.
.
No comments:
Post a Comment