ABC's Wright uncritically reported McCain's mischaracterization of Obama's tax plan
SUMMARY: ABC's David Wright reported without challenging Sen. John McCain's claim to voters in New Hampshire that Sen. Barack Obama "wants to confiscate their hard-earned money." Wright did not note that Obama has proposed cutting taxes for low- and middle-income taxpayers, while raising taxes only on individuals earning more than $200,000 per year and families earning more than $250,000 per year.
During the October 22 edition of ABC's World News with Charles Gibson, correspondent David Wright reported without challenging Sen. John McCain's claim to voters in New Hampshire that Sen. Barack Obama "wants to confiscate their hard-earned money." Wright then aired video of McCain asserting of Obama's tax plan: "The redistribution of wealth is the last thing America needs right now." At no point did Wright note that Obama has proposed cutting taxes for low- and middle-income taxpayers, while raising taxes only on individuals earning more than $200,000 per year and families earning more than $250,000 per year. As Media Matters for America has noted, the Tax Policy Center concluded that compared with McCain, "Obama would give larger tax cuts to low- and moderate-income households and pay some of the cost by raising taxes on high-income taxpayers."
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, approximately 4.2 percent of New Hampshire households earned more than $200,000 in income in 2007, the most recent data available.
From the October 22 edition of ABC's World News with Charles Gibson:
WRIGHT: Today, McCain told voters in "live free or die" New Hampshire that Obama wants to confiscate their hard-earned money.
McCAIN: The redistribution of wealth is the last thing America needs right now.
WRIGHT: Today, the McCain campaign also launched another round of automated phone calls to voters, this time accusing Obama of being soft on crime.
Formatting FAIL.
If you raise taxes on the wealthy and cut taxes for the rich, that IS redistribution of wealth. I happen to believe that it's completely justified and long overdue, but it is what it is. Just like all these years of tax cuts for the rich while the tax burden on the middle class increased was redistribution of wealth UPWARDS.
Media Matters- its really not the job of the MSM to act as apologists for EITHER candidate. John McCain told an audience that Obama wants to raise taxes on Americans, which is a FACT. If Barack Obama in a speech says "John McCain supports George Bush's policies," as he has many times, I don't expect him to add "but sometimes he doesn't" and give us a percentage based on his Senate votes. I'd like the media to do it, but only if it does fact checks on everything that BOTH candidates say.
Absolutely! We should CUT taxes for the wealthy and RAISE taxes on the rich!
(sorry, it was too good to pasup...)
pass up...I should talk...
yeah, my typo. Of course I meant "if you raise taxes on the wealthy and cut taxes for the middle class, I guess I was just typing a bit too fast.
"Media Matters- its really not the job of the MSM to act as apologists for EITHER candidate. John McCain told an audience that Obama wants to raise taxes on Americans, which is a FACT. If Barack Obama in a speech says "John McCain supports George Bush's policies," as he has many times, I don't expect him to add "but sometimes he doesn't" and give us a percentage based on his Senate votes. I'd like the media to do it, but only if it does fact checks on everything that BOTH candidates say"
Very well said. MMFA feels the media shouldn't report what the candidates say, ahh only conservative candidates that is, straight up. They want the media to filter and fact check every thing they report what the candidates, ahh only conservative candidates that is, say. It doesn't happen, it never happened, it won't happen. As long as the media identifies who is saying what, the public should be able to judge the accuracy of the information vs. campaign spin. We aren't idiots.
We aren't idiots, you say. Speak for yourself ;-) The truth is, the media simply reporting the spin of campaigns isn't doing the job of informing the public. Yes, the facts are "out there", but too many people just don't bother to read and study to find out the reality. They rely on these 30 second "news" casts.
"The truth is, the media simply reporting the spin of campaigns isn't doing the job of informing the public."
If all they are going to do is uncritically repeat what the campaigns say...then they need to change their job titles from "journalist" to STENOGRAPHER.
WRIGHT: "Today, McCain told voters in "live free or die" New Hampshire that Obama wants to confiscate their hard-earned money"
Do you really think Wright needs to follow this up with a caviat like "Come on folks, Obama doesn't really want to confiscate your money, his plan is........."
If people listening to this aren't able to see this for what it is, then no amount of spoon feeding will ever suffice.
The press has been stenographers in too many cases, as doggone says. For most campaign news stories, run the clips of what they're saying with a brief fact check. That's not too much to ask.
Because not all "fact checks" can be explained briefly in the time alotted. Many require detailed policy qualifiers and if they are not in the complete context what good is it? When a campaign makes an idiotic statement like confiscating hard earned money, there is no need to fact check such nonsense.
Okay. but that's what Al Gore and John Kerry thought, too.
Okay. But then one would have to accept your premise that the media and it's rightwing bias helped defeat Gore and Kerry. When it's perfectly arguable on the other side that the overwhelmingly leftwing media is pushing Obama.
I don't give much credence to candidates or their supporters who reflexively blame the media for their ills. It cuts both ways.
The bias of the press is a corporate bias. It's an ownership issue and results in the dumbing down of coverage. And yes, this DID hurt Gore and Kerry, because their positions were distorted and the personalities CREATED for them by the right-wing, and picked up by the press became an issue.
Tommy did you ever read David Brock's book "The Right-Wing Noise Machine?" Very good documentation for how right wing themes were created and sustained and picked up by the mainstream press.
If McCain wants his talking points out there, let him damn well buy ad space. No need for the corproate media to do it for him. Come on. No fact check needed then. And people can gauge for themselves the veracity of his statements.
I call BS on you. This is propaganda and you know it. Not so cleverly disguised propaganda, I might add. For those paying attention.
Then I would assume you would say the same thing to the Obama campaign when the media reports on one of their claims against McCain that may be factually inaccurate, out of context, or just campaign hyperbole?
I mean, of course you would, because otherwise you're just spouting partisan BS propaganda.
She's complaining about the media. They should fact check both candidates. Democrats are factual more often, so I welcome the media to assume their historical role as fact checker and watchdog.
Tommy still sees things as equal despite all of the evidence to the contrary. Dems can't and don't get away with a quarter of what the Republicans get away with in the press. Tommy just isn't attention in his attempts to paint the current media as an equal opportunity player for both sides. Like I said, it's BS. You don't have to be particularly partisan to realize that.
I'd like the media to do it, but only if it does fact checks on everything that BOTH candidates say.
I don't get your point here... you'd like for the media to do a better job of critically reporting on candidates' mischaracterization of an opponent -- but only if the media do it in every instance in which it happens? I think there's room for better reporting that falls short of perfection.
I guess the Bill Ayers fluffle didn't poll too well, since the Grampy/Twit Express seems to be settling in on this Joe-the-Plumber phony populism. And, who knows... it might work. There are enough uneducated rednecks out there who (A) Believe everything Rush Limbaugh tells them, and (B) Subscribe to the fantasy that only lazy people are poor, and hard workers like them are destined to be rich... some day.
Interesting that they believe returning to the tax rates that were in place during the 90s has suddenly become "socialism", even though many of them made great piles of money in the stock market during those years. Are they lemmings, or sheep.... or just plain stupid?
The only thing I'm more sick of than the "Obama is a Socialist" crap this season is the "Grampy McCain" crap this season.'
Really, all this harping on McCain's age is so juvenile, it drags the whole conversation down to the level of Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh. What the hell is wrong with being old? Or a Grandfather? I wish you guys would grow the hell up, really. There are a thousand reasons to vote against McCain. "Grampy" makes you sound like a petulant spoiled little brat who thinks HE'S never going to get old.
Grampy grampy grampy grampy grampy. There you go.
That theme is there because he reminds many of us of the cranky type of senior who hates people who he thinks are thwarting him in some way. He deserves to be first in the check out line, is indignant when kids play too loudly next door, hates leaves and change and optimism.
by the way, I am friends with many dear people who are elderly, and they are nothing like McCain.
Grampy grampy grampy grampy grampy. There you go.
Ha! Well Mary that does sound kinda bratty ;-)
What's next? I know you are but what am I?
Seriously though, McCain scares the sh#t out of me, but I'm not exactly doing cartwheels over Junior aka Obama. But when given the choice between two evils, I'll go with Junior.
At least the Junior has a good disposition as opposed to ornery Gramps :-)
jeter, I'm glad you have a sense of humor. Now, get off my lawn, dang nab it!
Thanks for proving my point. You remind me of the kindergarten kids on the playground.
The theme is that you are a childish brat. Don't try to embroider it please.
No, thanks for proving MY point, nanny boo boo. I'll embroider it anyway I please, so there, Mr. poopy pants. Oh, and have a nice day ;-) ;-) ;-)
The only thing I'm more sick of than the "Obama is a Socialist" crap this season is the "Grampy McCain" crap this season.'
That's a false equivalent. The McCain camp is calling Obama a Socialist, the Obama camp is not calling McCain Grampy.
I'm already old, you impertenent putz! Not as old as GRAMPY, but if I live that long, I have no intention of running for president.
Grampy McCheesenuts is showing signs of senility in his stump speeches.... but it's considered too "rude" to comment on it.
The main reason it's an issue is that the old fart has nominated an airhead with good legs as his running mate. The thought of that Evangelical Nutbag as President should scare the hell out of anybody who's not counting on Jesus coming back in the next couple of years.
I'm not surprised that people actually tried to defend their childish "grampy" crap here. Your defenses are more pathetic than the original post.
Again- grow the hell up. As I posted before, there are real, substantive reasons to oppose John McCain for president. He "shows signs of senility?" Please post a link so I can see your Medical degree, Nerzog. Otherwise, save that kind of slander for the Right Wingers.
I tend to agree with you. Though I think monikers such as McSame are clever, they don't add anything to the dialog and actually detract from the credibility of the poster. That's why I've refrained from using them. However, it's up to the individiual poster to determine the tone of their post, and I'm not sure scolding them in a school marm fashion is really constructive.
I'm a really lousy typist. "McCain" involves me successfully hitting the shift key when I want to twice, "Grampy" only once. I use it only to reduce my typo liability by 50%.
Col, you aren't all THAT shiftless!
Slander? Please post a link to your law degree. Otherwise, I don't think it is technically slander.
Grow the hell up? Where's the fun in that? During the time that President Numbnuts was lying to us about WMDs, I posted regularly to a local website's bulletin board. I used to be polite to the Troglodytes and try to reason with them, presenting sober, cogent arguments. Hell, I was so polite and logical that I was stupid enough to use my real name. When I dared defend people like Scott Ritter or criticize Bush's case for war, I was met with accusations of being a traitor and worse. One even posted that he knew where my kids attended school, and named the school. That experience left me a little wiser and more cynical.... and I realized that some people simply do not respond to reason.
Rush Limbaugh and his acolytes have poisoned the political discourse in this country, and I'm just bitter enough to respond in kind.... call it therapy. As long as these Troglodytes support Grampy McCheesenuts and his Doofus Twit from Alaska, I feel no compulsion to show them respect. Besides, they don't respect my candidate, do they?
I agree. Snark is a powerful tool and sometimes our only one against people who refuse to use logic. When people have left the reality based community, irreverence is the proper response.
Did you see Joe the Plumber's eyes start to get glossy as Obama tried to explain his plan to him??
MK, last night I saw that entire clip for the first time, and you're right, Sam the Tool was just doing the smile-n-nod as he tried to cling to his preconceptions. But I don't know if I agree with you that candidates should go with a plan for something as compicated as tax policy based on what fits best into a four word sentence or sound bite.
To me, that's what the whole problem with the media comes down to;The campaigns will obviously simplify the issues down to black & white positions that they can use in their favor, it's the media who should be responsible for fleshing these topics out.
Other people may believe that the media's role is to play tape and video of the pols and their spokesmen, and it's the public's job to find the time to do the investigative reporting on their own. Seems like that makes the media a redundant middleman, but that's just my view.
I hear ya Col and agree. However, I also would like to good guys to win every now and again. The nuance can be there, but not front and center. At the very least, Obama should have some better at marketing his plan to put a clearer and simpler spin on it.
BTW, to take the actual interaction with Joe one step further ... IMHO, Joe was a plant all along. He made statements RIGHT from the McCain playbook:
1. He was buying a business that just happened to be $250k (a lie).
2. He did not interact with Obama after forming his question.
3. Obama even said that Joe was probably not going to vote for him, so he never was "on the fence". Another lie.
I saw that clip as well. Obama's problem is that he genuinely wanted to explain it so the douchebag could understand it. He didn't realize he was being set up. Interesting that the Right Wing Screaming Weenies have latched on to the phrase "Spread the wealth" as proof of Obama's "Marxism" when it was a toss away comment at the end of his long, detailed explanation. Isn't it an old colloqualism, anyway?
Nerzog, I also saw the clip, Obama was being very respectful and reasoned in his explanations, one can disagree with his philosophy, but if our politicians would all be as honest and forthright in defending their positions as Obama was with this "Joe" character, it would be better for all. Which is why I support Obama, I don't agree with everything he says, but we need Obama for many reasons.
As for McCain, he is a pompous arrogant politician, look at this from 2000;
Tommy, I heard a little bit of Hugh Hewitt on the drive home form work yesterday, with one of his regulars (Victor David Hansen ?), and they had Obama's position all boiled down to this: Somebody who has put their sacrifice, sweat and blood into their work to the point where they make half a million a year should make exactly the same as a laborer who paints houses.Is that really what you think America is about? ;0)
Whoa! How did I miss that? I don't usually watch the video clips here if there's a transcript, but do those chowderheads have "Maverick" painted on their bare torsos? Go Team!
Spread the wealth um. Well if someone calls that bad then they must be for concentraing the wealth. Thereby insuring that only the right people may have it forevermore..ahem.