Tuesday, February 17, 2004
ANATOMY OF A BIASED PRESS...
I opened my State newspaper today and found one of the clearest examples of how the press can spin, confuse, misinform, and massage opinion toward a liberal bent. The State newspaper is South Carolina's largest newspaper. Interestingly, the Post and Courier does a pretty fair job of handling the very same issue of TAXES and Governor Sanford's plan to reduce income taxes incrementally over the next few years. So just how can the press "spin" a story? Here's the actual story....and below is a critique of how it's done.
First, the headline: Economists raise concerns about Sanford tax proposal
--notice the plural of economist...there's a whole slew of them, right? And they're ALL raising "concerns." So, let's see what those 'concerns' are...
Schools, local governments and state-supported services could be in for trouble if Gov. Mark Sanford and GOP legislators lower the state income tax, economists said Monday.
--Wow, they're ALL in for trouble. I can't wait to hear from all these economists...especially since they all agree on everything. When was the last time two economists agreed on anything?
Sanford and House Speaker David Wilkins, R-Greenville, are expected to announce today a proposal to lower the 7 percent income tax by a third to 4.75 percent over the next decade.
The tax would be cut incrementally only in years when the state's revenue increased 2 percent or more. No other taxes would be levied or raised to make up for the lost revenue.
Experts say South Carolina is the only state considering a tax cut without a corresponding tax increase. Economists predict the state would have to reduce services if it did that.
--I'm still waiting to hear from these economists. In the second paragraph, notice the assumption they make that there would be no other taxes raised to make up for the lost revenue. Since we haven't heard from a single economist so far, what facts, relevant to the discussion have been presented to make that assumption? I guess we're to assume that this is common knowledge. In fact, it's not common knowledge...it's liberal spin and bias. THEN, we're treated with the fact that we're now qualifying these so far un-named economists, as experts. So we've got some 'expert economists' telling us of all these horrible things that will happen.
"Most people would not cut their income if they needed more money" said David Brunori, a George Washington University tax law professor and a contributing editor to the tax policy publication, State Tax Notes.
--So there you have it...the first economist cited by the State newspaper. (It happens to be the only one, too) It's curious he isn't identified as an economist...just a tax law professor. In fact, a tax law professor that works for a 'tax policy publication' called State Tax Notes. Well, I took some time today to check them out. Directly from their website, they admit that they are "...Tax Analysts is a nonprofit corporation whose mission is to help the country tax its citizens fairly, simply, and efficiently. Our job is to stir up great tax policy debate and fuel it with the best news and commentary around..." (Bold emphasis added) So, you see? They're in the business of spin too. I couldn't get much further on the website since you have to pay nearly $1,000 dollars for their publications. Let's continue with the "news story"...
Economists say the local officials have reason to worry.
South Carolina's budget has been in the same dire straits as other states for three years. This year, lawmakers must find about $350 million to balance the 2004-05 budget by raising taxes or cutting services.
--Here we go AGAIN! More economists...(plural)...say everyone should worry. Then, they back it up with only TWO other possible alternatives: raising taxes, or cutting services. People have to consider that 'raising taxes' isn't the same as raising revenue. There are hundreds of examples of why this is wrong, but I'm not going to cite any "expert economists"...just history. JFK in the 60's...Reagan in the 80's...the "luxury tax" debacle of the 90's...and even the current Bush tax cuts of 2000. ALL RAISED REVENUE by CUTTING TAXES. More? Good...back to the 'story'...
States got into financial trouble after 2000, Brunori said, partly because they cut taxes during good economic times.
--So, PARTLY, because they cut taxes, eh? I would say, MOSTLY because they INCREASED SPENDING. But, I'm not an economists...especially a tax law professor pretending to be an economist...and getting paid money $1,000 for it.
But economists and tax experts said they haven't seen proof that the tax base would grow enough to pay for services.
--and later in the story...
But economists Monday said they couldn't name a state cutting income taxes now -- without increasing another tax to make up for the lost revenue -- on the tail end of a recession.
--This is getting strange. They couldn't name a state? or WOULDN'T name a state cutting income taxes now -- oh, without increasing another tax to make up for the lost revenue -- oh...AND at the tail end of a recession. Gee, with aqualifiersualifyers, I'd be hard pressed to name a state that's cutting income taxes without naming a state tree on a holiday that follows a Friday the 13th.
Bottom line, folks. Read your newspapers carefully. This kind of bias isn't hard to spot. It's sloppy journalism and downright dishonest.
It kind of makes the idea of a little fat gopher in a hole predicting the weather -- a little easier to believe.
I opened my State newspaper today and found one of the clearest examples of how the press can spin, confuse, misinform, and massage opinion toward a liberal bent. The State newspaper is South Carolina's largest newspaper. Interestingly, the Post and Courier does a pretty fair job of handling the very same issue of TAXES and Governor Sanford's plan to reduce income taxes incrementally over the next few years. So just how can the press "spin" a story? Here's the actual story....and below is a critique of how it's done.
First, the headline: Economists raise concerns about Sanford tax proposal
--notice the plural of economist...there's a whole slew of them, right? And they're ALL raising "concerns." So, let's see what those 'concerns' are...
Schools, local governments and state-supported services could be in for trouble if Gov. Mark Sanford and GOP legislators lower the state income tax, economists said Monday.
--Wow, they're ALL in for trouble. I can't wait to hear from all these economists...especially since they all agree on everything. When was the last time two economists agreed on anything?
Sanford and House Speaker David Wilkins, R-Greenville, are expected to announce today a proposal to lower the 7 percent income tax by a third to 4.75 percent over the next decade.
The tax would be cut incrementally only in years when the state's revenue increased 2 percent or more. No other taxes would be levied or raised to make up for the lost revenue.
Experts say South Carolina is the only state considering a tax cut without a corresponding tax increase. Economists predict the state would have to reduce services if it did that.
--I'm still waiting to hear from these economists. In the second paragraph, notice the assumption they make that there would be no other taxes raised to make up for the lost revenue. Since we haven't heard from a single economist so far, what facts, relevant to the discussion have been presented to make that assumption? I guess we're to assume that this is common knowledge. In fact, it's not common knowledge...it's liberal spin and bias. THEN, we're treated with the fact that we're now qualifying these so far un-named economists, as experts. So we've got some 'expert economists' telling us of all these horrible things that will happen.
"Most people would not cut their income if they needed more money" said David Brunori, a George Washington University tax law professor and a contributing editor to the tax policy publication, State Tax Notes.
--So there you have it...the first economist cited by the State newspaper. (It happens to be the only one, too) It's curious he isn't identified as an economist...just a tax law professor. In fact, a tax law professor that works for a 'tax policy publication' called State Tax Notes. Well, I took some time today to check them out. Directly from their website, they admit that they are "...Tax Analysts is a nonprofit corporation whose mission is to help the country tax its citizens fairly, simply, and efficiently. Our job is to stir up great tax policy debate and fuel it with the best news and commentary around..." (Bold emphasis added) So, you see? They're in the business of spin too. I couldn't get much further on the website since you have to pay nearly $1,000 dollars for their publications. Let's continue with the "news story"...
Economists say the local officials have reason to worry.
South Carolina's budget has been in the same dire straits as other states for three years. This year, lawmakers must find about $350 million to balance the 2004-05 budget by raising taxes or cutting services.
--Here we go AGAIN! More economists...(plural)...say everyone should worry. Then, they back it up with only TWO other possible alternatives: raising taxes, or cutting services. People have to consider that 'raising taxes' isn't the same as raising revenue. There are hundreds of examples of why this is wrong, but I'm not going to cite any "expert economists"...just history. JFK in the 60's...Reagan in the 80's...the "luxury tax" debacle of the 90's...and even the current Bush tax cuts of 2000. ALL RAISED REVENUE by CUTTING TAXES. More? Good...back to the 'story'...
States got into financial trouble after 2000, Brunori said, partly because they cut taxes during good economic times.
--So, PARTLY, because they cut taxes, eh? I would say, MOSTLY because they INCREASED SPENDING. But, I'm not an economists...especially a tax law professor pretending to be an economist...and getting paid money $1,000 for it.
But economists and tax experts said they haven't seen proof that the tax base would grow enough to pay for services.
--and later in the story...
But economists Monday said they couldn't name a state cutting income taxes now -- without increasing another tax to make up for the lost revenue -- on the tail end of a recession.
--This is getting strange. They couldn't name a state? or WOULDN'T name a state cutting income taxes now -- oh, without increasing another tax to make up for the lost revenue -- oh...AND at the tail end of a recession. Gee, with aqualifiersualifyers, I'd be hard pressed to name a state that's cutting income taxes without naming a state tree on a holiday that follows a Friday the 13th.
Bottom line, folks. Read your newspapers carefully. This kind of bias isn't hard to spot. It's sloppy journalism and downright dishonest.
It kind of makes the idea of a little fat gopher in a hole predicting the weather -- a little easier to believe.
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
