Several media outlets falsely suggested that only Democrats denied Republican claims that Speaker Nancy Pelosi's speech on the floor of the House of Representatives before a September 29 vote on the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 "cost some GOP votes." In fact, several House Republicans also have denied the allegation.
Mike Barnicle and Mark Halperin on MSNBC this morning agreed that the unserious media fell down in terms of holding the powerful accountable. That it, "abdicated that responsibility" over the years.
Under the headline "More Elderly Humor From Robert Gibbs," Time's Michael Scherer writes:
This morning on MSNBC, [Obama spokesman Robert] Gibbs returned to the make-fun-of-the-elderly joke well. "Just yesterday, John McCain said we shouldn't fix blame. He took a breath and then fixed blame. He said the fundamentals of our economy are strong, and he flip-flopped. He opposed the bail-out of AIG, and then he supported it. This guy zig-zags. Look, if he's driving a car, get off the sidewalk." (Video here.)
Hardy Har Har. Back in the 2004 presidential election, one in four voters was 60 years old or older. I am sure they find these sort of jokes from Obama's top message man hilarious. Just hilarious.
Uh ... if you "zig-zag" while driving, you'll likely end up on the sidewalk. That doesn't have anything to do with age; it has to do with most roads not being zig-zag shaped.
At the beginning of Scherer's post, he referenced a comment by Gibbs about McCain's failure to remember how many houses he owns as another example of Gibbs criticizing McCain's age. But Gibbs didn't say anything about McCain's age in that comment, either. He made a comment about McCain forgetting how many houses he has because McCain forgot how many houses he has.
Republicans, including House Minority Leader John Boehner, have said that Republican members of congress voted against the bailout legislation because they were upset over Nancy Pelosi's speech.
Reporters should ask John McCain if those members were putting "country first."
On the CBS Evening News, Bob Orr repeated Republican claims that "[c]onservative support" for the financial bailout bill "evaporated" because of a speech given by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi -- without noting contrary statements by members of Congress, including Republicans.
CNN's Tom Foreman falsely claimed that Sen. John McCain "has always said" allowing young people to set up private Social Security accounts "is not instead of Social Security; this should be in addition to Social Security." In fact, McCain supported President Bush's 2005 Social Security proposal, which would have allowed workers to divert up to 4 percent of their wages into a private account, thereby removing it from the money available to pay Social Security benefits for current retirees.
Last week, I noted that just the credit crisis was consuming Wall Street and turning it into arguably the biggest news story of the entire year, Newsweek arrived at my doorstep on September 15.
I counted up the pages the mag devoted to the Wall Street disaster (1) that week, and compared that to the number of pages Newsweek devoted to the White House campaign (16) and noted that the disparity highlighted how invested, professionally, journalists were in campaign story and how reluctant they were to pivot away from it even momentarily. (It was fun to cover!)
Believe or not, two weeks later the disconnect is just as bad at Newsweek. Despite the rolling, unprecedented bank bailouts and the fact that news consumer now, in numbers rarely seen by pollsters, almost universally proclaim the state of the economy to be the biggest story of the day and the one they are (nervously) following most closely each week, Newsweek's latest edition can't really be bothered.
Pages devoted in the latest Newsweek to the Wall Street fiasco: 4.
Pages devoted to the latest Newsweek to the White House campaign: 22.
On Morning Joe, host Joe Scarborough falsely asserted that Sen. Barack Obama "wants" "higher taxes." In fact, the Tax Policy Center concluded that, compared to Sen. John McCain, "Obama would give larger tax cuts to low- and moderate-income households and pay some of the cost by raising taxes on high-income taxpayers" -- those households earning more than $250,000 per year.
On Fox News' Fox & Friends Saturday, Steve Doocy stated that FactCheck.org said it was "true" that Sen. Barack Obama voted for a "bill that ... would increase taxes on people earning as little as $42,000 a year." Doocy added: "[Sen.] John McCain said, 'That was true, you did.' " In fact, FactCheck.org stated that "McCain was correct -- with qualification," adding that the votes McCain has previously cited for the claim were on a measure that "actually would not have altered taxes without additional legislation. ... McCain is referring to the provision that would have allowed the 25 percent tax bracket to return to 28 percent. The tax plan Obama now proposes, however, would not raise the rate on that tax bracket."
In the post-debate spin room, should journalists at least try to differentiate what's being said? Jeralyn at TalkLeft notes as an example Nicole Wallace's claim on CNN that Obama would raise taxes "on the vast majority of the American people."
Headlines on ABCNews.com and on The Page website falsely characterized a reported conversation between Henry Paulson and House Democrats as Paulson blaming the Democrats for failed negotiations on economic recovery legislation, "plead[ing]" with them not to "blow up" the deal. But the article to which both headlines linked characterized the exchange differently, with Paulson acknowledging that House Republicans bore responsibility for the failure of negotiations.
Today's New York Times features an article by Patrick Healy that portrays Barack Obama as "out of sync" with Americans who are upset about their struggling economic conditions and accuses Obama of "convey[ing] a certain distance from the ache that many voters feel."
But Healy does not support his thesis with any poll results. And for good reason: his own newspaper's public polling badly undermines his point.
A CBS/New York Times poll conducted September 12-16 found that 60 percent of Americans "think Barack Obama understands the needs and problems of people like yourself." Only 48 percent say the same of John McCain.
That same poll found that 60 percent of Americans are confident of Obama's "ability to make the right decisions about the economy." 53 percent said the same of McCain. And 66 percent said Obama "shares the values most Americans try to live by," compared to 61 percent who said the same of McCain.
If Healy distrusts his own newspaper's polling, he could have looked to the LA Times poll, which found that by a margin of 48-32, more Americans think Obama has "better ideas for strengthening the nation's economy." Or Pew, which found that by a margin of 47-35, more Americans think Obama would "best address the problems investment banks and companies with ties to the housing market are having."
Instead of providing public opinion polling relevant to his thesis (polling that, for the most part, completely falsifies the thesis) Healy included several quotes from "experts" that are contradicted by the polling. Incredibly, Healy didn't include a single quote from a source saying Obama's approach has been effective - despite the fact that the polling shows it has been more successful than McCain's.
Healy did, however, find a way to work Obama's race into an article that would seem to have nothing to do with the topic:
For Mr. Obama, the financial crisis poses different risks. He wants to appear fired up over the economy, but he has written before about wanting to avoid appearing like a stereotypical angry black man. Unlike Jesse Jackson, the Rev. Al Sharpton and other black leaders whose fulminations could scare white voters, Mr. Obama is not from and of New York, Detroit, or the segregated South; he grew up in Hawaii and Indonesia. To some degree Mr. Obama faces the opposite challenge from fiery black leaders who came before him: Is he too cool for a crisis like this one?
In its news report about Thursday's hectic White House negotiations regarding the financial bailout, Politico reports, "And when Democrats left to caucus in the Roosevelt Room, Paulson pursued them, begging that they not "blow up" the legislation."
What Politico left out was that, according to ABC's report last night, Paulson then immediately conceded it was "both sides" that were threatening to derail the bailout.
Again, this is part of what seems to be the media's attempt to set the groundwork for the blame game by not reporting accurately what Paulson said yesterday.
And yes, it tarnishes Dems.
Headline at Halperin's The Page at time.com: PAULSON TO DEMS: "DON'T BLOW THIS UP".
The item links to an ABC News bulletin headlined, "Bailout Talks Go On Amid Presidential Scuffle." The report includes mention that when Secretary of the Treasury Henry Paulson ran into senior Democrats in the White House today during all-day negotiations he reportedly said, "Please don't blow this up."
House Speaker Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., reportedly shot back, "We're not the ones trying to blow this up. It's the House Republicans."
To which Paulson replied, "I know, I know; it's both sides." [Emphasis added.]
Halperin's screaming headline makes only one point: Paulson thinks Dems, and Dems alone, will be responsible if the bailout fails. But the article itself makes perfectly clear Paulson himself does not believe that.