Rants & Reasons

Most mainstream media companies claim to maintain a sharp distinction between their news reporting and their editorializing. But in fact news reporting routinely supports conservative points of view.

Last Friday, the Wall St. Journal reported a story with the following lede:

Congress plans to spend $550 million to buy eight jets, a substantial upgrade to the fleet used by federal officials at a time when lawmakers have criticized the use of corporate jets by companies receiving taxpayer funds.

How dare they! The story is clearly intended to accuse Congress of hypocrisy and to promote the idea that a Democratic congress is made up of big spenders taking the public for a ride.

But the Columbia Journalism Review has the facts:

But wait a second. These planes are for an Air Force fleet that’s barely used by Congress—at least compared to the others who also use it. Over the last five years, 86 percent of the use of the private-plane fleet has been by the White House and the military. Just 14.5 percent has been congressional use.

The headline and subheadline are clearly misleading, implying as they do that these are congressional planes and that it is adding eight new planes to its fleet. But here’s what you find after reading nearly three-hundred words (emphasis mine):

The House Appropriations Committee says the new purchases are designed to replace seven aging and more expensive business jets. The net impact is one additional plane owned by the federal government and a substantial increase in its passenger capacity. (H/t Daily Kos)

It is no accident that The Wall St. Journal is owned by Rupert Murdoch, an avowedly right-wing ideologue whose vast media empire is devoted to promoted conservative causes.

Another story that caught my eye involves California politics. (h/t Calitics) The recently concluded budget agreement includes lots of gimmicks and program cuts that make it appear as if the budget is balanced. Some of these program cuts are clearly illegal.

Thus, people who are harmed by the loss of funding are going to court to prevent the state from implementing the cuts.

It is important that the public know that their elected representatives are engaged in illegal activity. But how does the LA Times report this story? With the headline

“Lawsuits are the latest roadblock for California budget”

The lede is even more egregious:

Well-connected lobbyists, political pressure and a good turnout at committee hearings used to be the special interest recipe for protecting turf in the state budget. Now, a potent new ingredient is being increasingly thrown into the mix: top-shelf litigators.

Lawyers are being drafted in droves to unravel spending plans passed by the Legislature and signed by the governor. The goal of these litigators is to get back money their clients lost in the budget process. They are having considerable success, winning one lawsuit after another, costing the state billions of dollars and throwing California’s budget process into further tumult.

The intent of this story is obvious—to create the impression that liberal interest groups are sabotaging a conservative Governor’s attempt to slash services. But it gets worse.

No mention is made of the illegality of the Governor’s budget until near the end of the piece:

It is hardly a secret in the Capitol that lawmakers sometimes approve budget measures despite their dubious legality because it buys them time. The hope is that by the time the appeals process is finally exhausted — which can take years — the economy will have rebounded, filling the gap with new revenue. It’s a kind of borrowing.

So according to Evan Halper, the author of this screed, theft is a kind of borrowing. Who knew? Evan, try out this justification the next time you rob a bank!

So perfectly legitimate spending by liberal government is theft; but theft by a conservative government is borrowing.

I get it now, I think.