Barack Obama

News Junkie Obama Rejects "false balance" of Media Coverage

|

Falsely balanced

Here's an interesting New York Times article about President Barack Obama's voracious media diet, his stubborn (and I think inaccurate) belief that his political troubles are significantly attributable to his failure "to tell a story to the American people," and his familiar left-of-center critique that straight journalism's tradition of giving credence to both sides of a story gives an asymmetrical advantage to the lying liars of the right. Here's an excerpt on the latter point:

While Mr. Obama frequently criticizes the heated speech of cable news, he sees what he views as deeper problems in news outlets that strive for objectivity. In private meetings with columnists, he has talked about the concept of "false balance" — that reporters should not give equal weight to both sides of an argument when one side is factually incorrect. He frequently cites the coverage of health care and the stimulus package as examples, according to aides familiar with the meetings.

Jay Carney, the White House press secretary, was previously Time magazine's Washington bureau chief. He said the president thought that some journalists were more comfortable blaming both parties, regardless of the facts. "To be saying 'they're both equally wrong' or 'they're both equally bad,'" Mr. Carney said, "then you look high-minded."

The term "false balance," which has been embraced by many Democrats, emerged in academic papers in the 1990s to describe global-warming coverage.

"I believe this type of 'accuracy' and 'balance' are a huge thing afflicting contemporary media," said Josh Marshall, editor and publisher of the left-leaning Web site Talking Points Memo.

It is interesting, and complicated, to ponder the manipulatable limitations of journalistic "fairness," and to even begin trying to determine which broad camp of American humans is more likely to tell, spread, and believe in lies about policy, politics, and science. But I think it's also important, and even telling, to point out something that the Press Critic in Chief and his fellow anti-false-balancers typically do not: The president is BSing us too. Particularly on the very topics he name-checks above: Obamacare and the stimulus.

Do you remember when the president warned Obamacare critics that "If you misrepresent what's in the plan, we will call you out"? While the anti-false balancers thundered their applause, the president went on to tell tall tales of his own. Here's how I described it at the time:

"There may be those—particularly the young and healthy—who still want to take the risk and go without coverage," he warned, in a passage defending compulsory insurance. "The problem is, such irresponsible behavior costs all the rest of us money. If there are affordable options and people still don't sign up for health insurance, it means we pay for those people's expensive emergency room visits." No, it means that, on balance, the healthy young don't pay for the unhealthy old. The whole point of forcing vigorous youth to buy insurance is using their cash and good actuarials to bring down the costs of covering the less fortunate. […]

"Add it all up, and the plan I'm proposing will cost around $900 billion over ten years," he said, trying hard to sound like those numbers weren't pulled out of Joe Biden's pants, and won't be dwarfed by actual costs within a year or two. "We've estimated that most of this plan can be paid for by finding savings within the existing health care system–a system that is currently full of waste and abuse," he said, making him at least the eighth consecutive president to vaguely promise cutting Medicare "waste" (a promise, it should be added, that could theoretically be fulfilled without drastically overhauling the health care system). […]

And in a critical, tic-riddled passage that many of even his most ardent supporters probably don't believe, Obama said: "Here's what you need to know. First, I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits–either now or in the future. Period." In case you couldn't quite read his lips, the president repeated the line for emphasis. Then: "And to prove that I'm serious, there will be a provision in this plan that requires us to come forward with more spending cuts if the savings we promised don't materialize." 

If that "one dime" formulation sounds familiar, that's because Obama made—then almost immediately broke—the same promise regarding taxes on Americans earning less than $250,000 a year. Surely the no-new-deficits pledge is headed for the campaign dustbin faster even then that "net spending cut" we'll never see.

I wrote about journalistic critics' preference for scrutizining the health care remarks of Sarah Palin over at CNN Opinion last year.

Advertisement

NEXT: Obama Keeping Honorary Position as Boy Scout President Despite Opposing Ban on Gay Members

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. In private meetings with columnists, he has talked about the concept of “false balance” ? that reporters should not give equal weight to both sides of an argument when one side is factually incorrect. He frequently cites the coverage of health care and the stimulus package as examples, according to aides familiar with the meetings.

    He’s right. Reporters shouldn’t be giving him time for his lies about jobs or deficit savings.

    1. Every day I find a new reason to hate this mother fucker just a little bit more.

  2. Why must you persist in muddling the narrative with facts?

  3. Does it ever occur to Obama that people don’t accept “the story” because it’s bullshit?

  4. In fairness, I don’t much care for the standard way newspaper writers will say So and So says the Earth is round but not everyone agrees. So and So from the flat Earth society say it’s flat.

    1. With the MSM it’s usually “so-and-so says Sarah Palin is a puppy-killing hatemonger; Palin denies the charge.”

      Balance!

    2. I agree; The Washington Post does this all the time. There is a real fallacy called false balance.

  5. This is a favorite trope of media “self-criticism” – oh, we’re too fair and balanced, we give coverage to those right-wing liars who confuse the public.

  6. “The fact that we even bother to offer the Ratbagging Teafucker Party the opportunity to deny what are plainly true and factual claims about their nefarious plans to dismantle the government and sacrifice the poorest and most vulnerable among us on the altar of their PROFITZ proves the nobility of our calling.”

  7. He must love MSNBC then; it’s like a 24 hour obama commercial. Did you know Al fucking Sharpton has a show on that channel? I saw bits on a tv while at the gym. The stories were bolstered by tgas at the bottom of the screen saying things like “Romney has history of anti-women policies” and “More Romney lies” and there was a screen saying something about Obamacare already working with bullet points of how many women have recieved “free” care as proof. You’re better off getting your news from the back of a cereal box.

    1. I make jokes at her expense, pretty much every time her name comes up, but Rachel Maddow is the only talking head on MSNBC who even feigns objectivity or pretends to deal in actual fact. The rest of them, Matthews, Schulz, Sharpton, Bashir, Toure, O’Donnell, are the Progressive equivalent of EWTN (Global Catholic Television Network).

      Heresy not welcome.

  8. …that reporters should not give equal weight to both sides of an argument when one side is factually incorrect.

    Considering how many times the President has stated as fact that “every economist agrees” or other demonstrably false statements of expert consensus, I don’t think he knows or recognizes that his own side is often factually incorrect.

    But what I find more troubling is the lack of transparency here at the new reason. WHO WROTE THIS POST?

    1. Matt. (See the CNN link in the last line)

      1. Oh, I knew it was Welch. There are a few link hints. I just wanted him to admit it.

    2. Oh yes you guys love the old “fair and balanced” approach, rely on it in fact. Otherwise it couldn’t be the case that a couple fringe bullshit artists trump the consensus of economists. And scientists for that matter, sadly.

      1. There was unanimous agreement about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, except maybe for a few bullshit artists trumped up to refute the consensus in the world intelligence community.

        1. Which is evidence of what, exactly? All correct opinions are minority opinions, always?

          1. That dissent isn’t always trumped up and shouldn’t be dismissed simply because it doesn’t fit our agenda.

      2. consensus of economists.

        So what you’re saying is you know nothing of economics or any economists. We already know that. What a fucking joke.

      3. There’s always a “consensus” of the top men in economics and science and etc., until they’re proven to have been a pack of fools, and a new consensus emerges. Look it up.

  9. “There may be those?particularly the young and healthy?who still want to take the risk and go without coverage,” he warned, in a passage defending compulsory insurance. “The problem is, such irresponsible behavior costs all the rest of us money.”

    Everybody belongs to everybody else.

  10. such irresponsible behavior costs all the rest of us money.

    Because if we cannot ensnare enslave the lowest risk members in the insurance pool, the rest of us will have to pay rates which accurately reflect risk.

  11. No Obama. Your problems are due to being Bush with a tan

  12. Obama doesn’t lie, he is just” getting out ahead of” reality.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.