September 8, 2003
From the desk of Jane Galt:Chock full of bloggy goodness
Gregg Easterbrook has a blog!
(And while you're over at TNR, read Jill Stewart on the abysmal job California's media do at asking Democratic legislators tough questions. Sample:
The left-leaning Democrats who control the legislature, and were largely put into office by government employee unions that want to grow their departments like fungus, show no signs of halting a spending spree that exploded under Governor Gray Davis. Compliments of California's livid taxpayers, for instance, you can still get free chiropractic and dental care for your kids even if you earn up to $38,000 per year. And not one state worker, out of roughly 230,000, has yet been laid off to help solve the state's $38 billion budget shortfall.. . .
A case in point, which Bustamante cheered in Wednesday's first gubernatorial debate, is California Senate Bill 2, which forces businesses with as few as 20 workers to pay for employee health care. If approved, it would be the closest thing to socialism to become law in a generation. If California's walking dead media had been conscious while SB 2 and other dreadful bills fermented in backrooms this month, the Sacramento Bee wouldn't have been one of the state's only papers to report on the bill. As Democratic TV analyst Susan Estrich, commenting on the scads of foolish bills being rushed to Davis before a legal deadline next week, said on KABC TalkRadio: "What is happening now up in Sacramento, and the fact that there is a recall--these two things are not a coincidence. ... You can't blame the recall on Darrell Issa anymore."
If only the California media had a clue. Instead, they think the big story is that Arnold isn't talking to them.
. . .
Reporters say it's the public's right to know that fuels their anger. That's a crock. If the lazy California media were motivated by the public's right to know, major newspapers would not have resoundingly failed to dig into the budget crisis while Davis was running for reelection. As we now know, former chief state economist Ted Gibson and others showed Davis figures last fall indicating that stock market revenues had dried up and that the budget the legislature was contemplating at the time would put the state many, many billions in the hole. But, Gibson says, Davis refused to even discuss the depressing new data. That would have been an easy story for the media to nail, with rumors swirling all over the capitol about a major spin underway to mask the size of the upcoming deficit. . . . After Gibson and others alerted him to the looming crisis, Davis continued to publicly cite the far rosier "official" revenue figures from May, right up to his November election. Most reporters just laughed at Republican candidate Bill Simon's estimate of a deficit greater than $20 billion. A few days after Davis was reelected, he admitted the new deficit was $21 billion. Then, a few weeks later, Davis said it was actually greater than $35 billion. Had journalists cared about the public's right to know about that, Davis probably would not be governor today.
Damn, that woman can write.)
Posted by Jane Galt at September 8, 2003 5:38 PM | TrackBack | Technorati inbound links
Is this a plea for a subsidized media which maximizes something other than a profit?
And what about that lazy national press (not to mention the lazy bloggers) which has written so little about the Bush's prevarications on the national deficit?
Hasn't Bush consistently cited "rosy" economic/budget projections only to be proved wrong in retrospect. Has he ever, just once, been overly pessimistic about the economy or budget numbers?
And I suppose I shouldn't even bring up the cost and personnel estimates of Operation Iraqi Anarchy.... How much was it that Bush just got around to asking for? And how much did Larry Lindsey say it was going to be, just before he was shown the door?
"Hasn't Bush consistently cited "rosy" economic/budget projections only to be proved wrong in retrospect. Has he ever, just once, been overly pessimistic about the economy or budget numbers? "
Sure, when he was campaigning. And he was castigated for "talking down" our mighty bubble economy.
Now it seems people have no problem emphasizing the bad news over the good(and yes there is a little good news about the economy this year). Flog that consumer confidence until it is dead and that will win people elections.
Since Easterbrook is using some of the same items in his ESPN column (the Ashcroft one, for example), you now have a choice: with or without football.
As a San Francisco who reads newspapers, blogs and follows events, I saw criticism of the Bush budget ranging from the NY Times to Andrew Sullivan. I saw very little analysis about the state budget deficit before the election (although it is probably my fault for subscribing to the SF Chron).
This is similar to the lack of reporting about the disaster of the California Electricity deregulation before it ocurred. I have friends who are energy economists (and who were quoted laterduring the crisis) who told me that the system was flawed and would be fairly easily manipulated. Why weren't they called up before the crisis?
My guess is that the issues are pretty complicated and until a crisis break not that interesting to journalists who probably do not understand the issue anyway.
"Damn, that woman can write."
She's fun to watch on TV, too. An all-around goddess, she is.
I wonder if this is the same Jill Stewart who wrote a column in an alternative LA publication last year around this time basically telling people to get over 9/11, forget about it, and compared it to a natural disaster?
Yes!
Here's the money quote:
"[O]n September 11, I suggest that you not light a candle for the victims of the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Plenty of others will do so for you.
Instead, say a prayer for the 20,000 obliterated in India, or the 1,100 trampled in Nigeria, or the untold dead child soldiers. Do not buy a "Let's Roll!" T-shirt, but do send a dollar to an Afghan group helping illiterate girls and boys learn to read normal childhood books. Play a small part in helping our self-indulgent nation to become a better citizen of the world."
Yep, Jane, the lady certainly has writing chops, I'll admit that.
Um, well, ok. I guess I missed all that criticism of Bush consistently citing rosy & unrealistic estimates for the economy, beneficiaries of the tax cuts, war costs, and war personnel numbers. I suppose you guys pointed out the misleading statistics and analysis when it occured? And you are as bothered by Bush's prevarications as by Davis's?
The irony of the recent posts and comments on this blog astound me. Of course the press didn't engage in critical Krugman style deconstruction of Davis' economic & budget communications. But -- with the exception of Krugman's NYT crusade -- the national press has been at least as inept with criticizing Bush's propaganda.
A Krugman interview at buzzflash gets to the heart of it -- he has different incentives than most journalists since he has another full time job as a professor. His livelihood can't be threatened, he's not part of the journalistic groupthink, and he doesn't need to ingratiate himself to powerful people.
Not many other journalists are so insulated from the need to ingratiate themselves to powerful people (their sources and their producers / editors / publishers) and it isn't really that surprising that we have so few willing to engage in really critical reporting.
It's not that reporters are dumb (some surely are, many are not) -- their incentives just aren't properly aligned.
dsl angebot dsl dsl dsl tarife dsl flatrate isdn xxl dsl bestellen dsl dsl flatrate dsl dsl dsl angebote 1&1
Comments are Closed.