Sorry, it seemed to copy and paste ok but it’s not appearing now.
my question is, isn’t your beef with the source of the information, which is some obscure government agency with a long name, rather than the NYT, which only reported the information.
er, nope. It's possible to report the information without scaremongering.
Rather than accuse or criticize the Times, doesn’t it make more sense to discuss the program?
For better or worse, Social Security has been framed as a Trust Fund. By the accounting and actuaries, the trust fund is forecasted to run out, sooner rather than later, give or take a few years. Take issue with the accounting, if you like, but there is a reality that demographics are an issue.
And for the record, despite my stance here as a moderate, I will not and do not argue that benefits should be cut, or that the retirement age should be raised.
Rather, it seems worthy of either changing the accounting to make it a general obligation and less of a political football, or raising taxes on the wealthy to make the program more solvent.
Instead of accusing The Times of scaremongering, rather than just reporting.
Rather than accuse or criticize the Times, doesn’t it make more sense to discuss the program?
For better or worse, Social Security has been framed as a Trust Fund. By the accounting and actuaries, the trust fund is forecasted to run out, sooner rather than later, give or take a few years. Take issue with the accounting, if you like, but there is a reality that demographics are an issue.
And for the record, despite my stance here as a moderate, I will not and do not argue that benefits should be cut, or that the retirement age should be raised.
Rather, it seems worthy of either changing the accounting to make it a general obligation and less of a political football, or raising taxes on the wealthy to make the program more solvent.
Instead of accusing The Times of scaremongering, rather than just reporting.
no, the purpose of this thread is to point out when the Times does a crappy job of being the paper of record.
no, the purpose of this thread is to point out when the Times does a crappy job of being the paper of record.
You want to start a SS thread, fine.
Presumably except when people disagree that they are doing a crappy job of being the paper of record.
They are reporting facts, in this particular case.
the purpose of the article is to cast the SS in a derogatory light and to imply that it's going to go under in 2033. As with the many pages of examples in this thread, they are pushing a particular agenda and not just "reporting facts". The mere use of words like "depleted" and "insolvent" should make this obvious.
the purpose of the article is to cast the SS in a derogatory light and to imply that it's going to go under in 2033. As with the many pages of examples in this thread, they are pushing a particular agenda and not just "reporting facts". The mere use of words like "depleted" and "insolvent" should make this obvious.
We’re gonna have to vehemently disagree on that point. What possible motive would the NY Times have to cast Social Security in a derogatory light?
Do you truly believe that the NYT is somehow averse to Social Security?
Depleted and insolvent are factual representations of the future state of the trust fund, regardless of whether you believe that or not.
Changing that fact, yes fact, will require change, even if it is just an accounting change. That accounting change has political repercussions. Hopefully the Republicans will agree.
There's no reason the NYT had to report on this story. Particularly given that we never reach that horizon where the trust fund runs out. It's always about a dozen years in the future. Ten years from now it will likely still be a dozen years in the future.
It has been a fairly bogus projection historically. It is best ignored IMHO.
Or wait until other outlets report on it and follow up with a critical analysis of the unreliability of the projection over time.
the purpose of the article is to cast the SS in a derogatory light and to imply that it's going to go under in 2033. As with the many pages of examples in this thread, they are pushing a particular agenda and not just "reporting facts". The mere use of words like "depleted" and "insolvent" should make this obvious.
We’re gonna have to vehemently disagree on that point. What possible motive would the NY Times have to cast Social Security in a derogatory light?
Do you truly believe that the NYT is somehow averse to Social Security?
Depleted and insolvent are factual representations of the future state of the trust fund, regardless of whether you believe that or not.
Changing that fact, yes fact, will require change, even if it is just an accounting change. That accounting change has political repercussions. Hopefully the Republicans will agree.
it's not a question of motive per se. It's a question of outlook.
And they're not necessarily "averse" to it. But they are largely deficit hawks who fear the effects of deficits, and SS is a convenient target for that doom and gloom (and wrong) outlook.
Their reporting on SS has been like this for years. They have given sympathetic views to people like Peter Peterson, a notorious deficit and SS hawk before he died, for decades.
Also, don't forget that the Times's readership is largely the elite of this country. They don't have much use for SS. They'd rather read about how it's hard to get by on 250k in NYC.
Never rely on the tweets for anything. The article has a completely different tone (and it was on an inside page in the Business section, for those of us who still read the paper version of the paper).
To me the article fairly and accurately captures the key points from the government report. It presents the facts and leaves it up to the reader to make conclusions of how likely or unlikely it is that the scenario will come to pass. Of course they're gonna highlight the conflict/tension of the story -- that's how the news business works. Would be kinda dumb if they headlined the article "Medicare steady as she goes", or "Gov't report says SS is swirling the drain -- but these forecasts are BS", as both of those basically say there's no need to read further.
And this story is everywhere with essentially the same lede so it's not just the NYT, the whole media business flubbed this one according to you guys.
there they go again, scaremongering on Social Security
Never rely on the tweets for anything. The article has a completely different tone (and it was on an inside page in the Business section, for those of us who still read the paper version of the paper).
granted, on the article contents. The article is actually largely about Medicare. They dispose of SS in the first few paragraphs, though they manage to let their deficit hawk flag fly.
As evil goes, this is not their worst offense, but the tweet and headline are quite bad.
To me the article fairly and accurately captures the key points from the government report. It presents the facts and leaves it up to the reader to make conclusions of how likely or unlikely it is that the scenario will come to pass. Of course they're gonna highlight the conflict/tension of the story -- that's how the news business works. Would be kinda dumb if they headlined the article "Medicare steady as she goes", or "Gov't report says SS is swirling the drain -- but these forecasts are BS", as both of those basically say there's no need to read further.
And this story is everywhere with essentially the same lede so it's not just the NYT, the whole media business flubbed this one according to you guys.
the whole media always flubs this story. What would you call reporting on an annual forecast that's always wrong that doesn't make the wrongness the lede?
It's like those people who think the world is ending on a particular date. And when it doesn't, they just move the date.
And the story has undue influence. Many Americans under 50 are convinced they'll never collect Social Security based on these stories. And that isn't true under any set of circumstances. At worst 80% of current benefits would be paid under these so-called doomsday scenarios.
It may be the topic that is covered the absolute worst by the U.S. media.
Incredibly, NY Times is doubling down on the Trump-voters-in-diners thing, w/ a clueless project aimed at "winning over" critics - especially right-wing media haters
Give it up! You want trust, NYT? Write the truth about democracy in peril. My new column https://t.co/UYEIC2XW2D
For years it was easy to cover “both sides” — Republicans and Democrats — as equally worthy, and blameworthy, partners in democracy. While we reporters had come of age as witnesses to the unprecedented resignation of a Republican president who’d tried to corrupt the institutions of government to affect an election — imagine! — what remained was a Republican Party still capable of a creditable role in a healthy two-party system. After all, Richard M. Nixon was forced to resign when congressional leaders of his party began abandoning him. Again, imagine that, Kevin McCarthy.
Now, when reporters or pundits use the words “both sides” in regard to some political problem, I stop reading or listening.
I started to chafe at false equivalence a quarter-century ago, as a congressional reporter amid Newt Gingrich’s Republican revolution. One party — his — was demonstrably more responsible for the nasty divisiveness, government gridlock and norm-busting, yet journalistic pressure to produce seemingly “balanced” stories — pressure both ingrained and imposed by editors — prevented reporters from sufficiently reflecting the new truth.
Then there's this, which is relevant to the discussion of Build Back Better and voters' perception of Biden's job performance.
Excellent article. Learned me somethin’ about Nixon. And the point about wrangling moderate and conservative Republicans certainly mirrors today’s situation.
I do have to ask whether if the media is not “doing their job” to explain the bill, isn’t it incumbent on the politicians to do so?
Media across the United States also reacted positively to the FAP. The White House estimated the initial four hundred editorial press coverage concluded that over 90% of them had a positive assessment of Nixon's plan. Most argued in favor of the FAP citing a need to reform the existing welfare system which they declared that it was a failure. Among the editorials that were uncertain of the FAP, they argued that Nixon would not be able to achieve an effective roll out for this plan throughout the United States. Additionally, they also feared that this would increase government expenditures, expanding the national debt.
More on the 1974 version of Nixon’s employer-based insurance plan that was “more ambitious than Obamacare”: https://khn.org/news/nixon-proposal/ Including:
No family would ever have annual out-of-pocket expenses for covered health services in excess of $1,500, and low-income families would face substantially smaller expenses.
That $1,500 annual cap was equivalent to nearly $9,000 today.
Then there's this, which is relevant to the discussion of Build Back Better and voters' perception of Biden's job performance.
Excellent article. Learned me somethin’ about Nixon. And the point about wrangling moderate and conservative Republicans certainly mirrors today’s situation.
I do have to ask whether if the media is not “doing their job” to explain the bill, isn’t it incumbent on the politicians to do so?
allegedly the press is supposed to be the impartial entity that will explain what is really in these bills. Does anyone really trust that if a politician explains what's in his or her proposed legislation that it isn't being spun to some degree to make it more appealing?
The politicians can talk until they are blue in the face or tweet until they're blue in the fingers and it won't make the impression on a lot of voters that media coverage will.
allegedly the press is supposed to be the impartial entity that will explain what is really in these bills. Does anyone really trust that if a politician explains what's in his or her proposed legislation that it isn't being spun to some degree to make it more appealing?
The politicians can talk until they are blue in the face or tweet until they're blue in the fingers and it won't make the impression on a lot of voters that media coverage will.
Now that has to be the scariest comment I have read — and I fear it is true.
A spoon-fed electorate, pause for commercial, etc.
allegedly the press is supposed to be the impartial entity that will explain what is really in these bills. Does anyone really trust that if a politician explains what's in his or her proposed legislation that it isn't being spun to some degree to make it more appealing?
The politicians can talk until they are blue in the face or tweet until they're blue in the fingers and it won't make the impression on a lot of voters that media coverage will.
Now that has to be the scariest comment I have read — and I fear it is true.
A spoon-fed electorate, pause for commercial, etc.
Then there's this, which is relevant to the discussion of Build Back Better and voters' perception of Biden's job performance.
Excellent article. Learned me somethin’ about Nixon. And the point about wrangling moderate and conservative Republicans certainly mirrors today’s situation.
I do have to ask whether if the media is not “doing their job” to explain the bill, isn’t it incumbent on the politicians to do so?
No, it's the job of journalists. Literally, that's their job. They make choices on how to cover an issue, and the overwhelming choice so far has been to focus on the price tag. Furthermore, they report on the price tag in the most simplistic and misleading way. Their reporting so far has been a net negative - they are misinforming their reader/viewership.
allegedly the press is supposed to be the impartial entity that will explain what is really in these bills. Does anyone really trust that if a politician explains what's in his or her proposed legislation that it isn't being spun to some degree to make it more appealing?
The politicians can talk until they are blue in the face or tweet until they're blue in the fingers and it won't make the impression on a lot of voters that media coverage will.
Now that has to be the scariest comment I have read — and I fear it is true.
A spoon-fed electorate, pause for commercial, etc.
even for you, that's a bizarre comment. That you think it's "scary" for journalists to explain to their consumers what's in proposed legislation is just insane.
I’m not panicking. Why would I panic? I’m not even a Democrat.
I have said Biden’s poll slippage is a legit concern. I think one other non-MAGA poster has agreed. Otherwise the consensus on here is that it’s a big nothing burger. Which I find quite peculiar, as it seems to be pretty much the biggest political story in the country over the past ~6 weeks, with most every major media outlet publishing articles about Biden’s numbers and the political implications thereof. And forget about ‘24 or next year’s midterms — in Virginia, where they vote in <3 weeks, McAuliffe’s lead has slipped to within the margin of error, just coincidentally in the same period as Biden’s swoon. And the VA D candidate himself has cited Biden’s low popularity as a drag on his own campaign. But, I guess it’s all a big nothing burger.
I’m not panicking. Why would I panic? I’m not even a Democrat.
I have said Biden’s poll slippage is a legit concern. I think one other non-MAGA poster has agreed. Otherwise the consensus on here is that it’s a big nothing burger. Which I find quite peculiar, as it seems to be pretty much the biggest political story in the country over the past ~6 weeks, with most every major media outlet publishing articles about Biden’s numbers and the political implications thereof. And forget about ‘24 or next year’s midterms — in Virginia, where they vote in <3 weeks, McAuliffe’s lead has slipped to within the margin of error, just coincidentally in the same period as Biden’s swoon. And the VA D candidate himself has cited Biden’s low popularity as a drag on his own campaign. But, I guess it’s all a big nothing burger.
You actually think that what the media decides to treat as the biggest story is actually the most important?
You're such a good news consumer. CNN loves people like you.
CNN faced a predicament recently when its new poll showed President Joe Biden with a healthy 50% approval rating. The high-profile survey was certainly good news for the White House, which has been battered with negative news coverage since August, with the Beltway press circling, eagerly predicting the Democrat’s demise just nine months into office.
The CNN poll represented an internal problem because it punctured the preferred media narrative about Biden being caught in a slow-motion spiral. Plus, the 50% poll followed on the heels of a Fox News poll, which also showed Biden at the respectable 50% mark — a public approval plateau that Trump never once reached while in office.
So what did CNN do? Did it buck the Beltway groupthink and report that Biden’s popularity was on the upswing? It did not. Instead, the network did its best to bury, or downplay, its own polling so it wouldn’t have to upset the beloved storyline of Biden being locked in a constant state of crisis. (A White House “under siege.”) Still itching for the daily drama of the Trump years, CNN continues to uncork breathless, perilous coverage that often does not match reality — even the reality of its own polling.
Writing up the survey’s results, CNN’s dispatch didn’t mention Biden’s strong 50% approval rating until the sixth paragraph, stressing that Americans were “divided.” That’s an extraordinary take, since CNN in August led the media charge in claiming the U.S. troop withdrawal from Afghanistan represented a cataclysmic event within the Biden presidency, and dedicated hundreds of hours to the story. It was CNN’s Clarissa Ward who was famously wrong when she declared that the United States’ effort to evacuate thousands of Afghans was doomed to failure.
Yet eight weeks later, and despite the avalanche of negative coverage, Biden’s approval rating hadn’t budged. Instead of acknowledging that political reality and marveling at Biden’s staying power, CNN played dumb.
er, nope. It's possible to report the information without scaremongering.