November 06, 2014
The NYT is pushing so hard for budget cuts that it is prepared to ignore journalistic standards to make its case. An article about the possibilities for collaboration between President Obama and the Republican Congress included a number of assertions that were just opinion or inventions.
The piece begins by telling readers:
“After years of clashes and a grudging truce, fiscal and economic policy was brought back to center stage by the wave of Republican electoral victories on Tuesday, with both President Obama and the new congressional leadership expressing hope that deals can be reached to simplify the tax code, promote trade and eliminate the budget deficit.”
It’s not clear where President Obama said that he wanted to “eliminate the budget deficit.” He didn’t say anything like this in his press conference. Since this would imply throwing millions of people out of work and slowing growth (sorry folks, elections can’t change the laws of economics any more than they can change the law of gravity), it’s not clear why he would want to eliminate the budget deficit.
When the piece reported that the Republican leadership is:
“considering turning to a parliamentary procedure called reconciliation to cut costs of entitlement programs like Medicare,“
it would have been useful to remind readers that Medicare costs have already fallen sharply relative to recent projections. In fact, the current projections for costs are far below the targets of deficit cutters from earlier in the decade.
The piece also later told readers:
“Fiscal rectitude and tax overhaul are matters that unite all wings of the Republican coalition, from the Tea Party right to the Big Business center. They also have strong adherents among good-government advocates in the Democratic Party’s center left.”
It apparently is defining “fiscal rectitude” as throwing people out of work and slower economic growth. This is a NYT definition, not the standard usage of the term.
In the same vein, at one point it tells readers that the national debt, “continues to grow though the annual deficit has receded,” implying that this is for some reason a problem. (It isn’t for any economic reason.)
This is not the only place where the piece invents its own language. It refers to the trade deals currently being negotiated, the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Pact and the Trans-Pacific Partnership, as “free trade” agreements. These are not free trade agreements. A major goal of these deals is to increase the strength of patent and copyright protection, especially on prescription drugs. This is 180 degrees at odds with free trade. The paper could increase accuracy and save space by omitting the word “free.”
Thanks to Robert Salzberg for calling this piece to my attention.
Note: Typos corrected, thanks folks.
Comments