Wall Street Journal Editorial Page's Overuse Of Scare Quotes: "Cost," "Deficit," "Affordable," "Report"

There are so many things that make The Wall Street Journal editorial page a source of personal fascination--the undying faith in voodoo economics, the staunch defense of executive privilege and disdain for independent counsels during Republican presidencies alternating with disdain for executive privilege and staunch defense of independent counsels during Democratic presidencies--but perhaps the most intriguing is the wildly promiscuous use of quotation marks. Over the years, it's become an obsession of mine.

Like most of us, the Journal uses scare quotes to signify that a term is misleading. A 2007 editorial on climate change complained that "political and media activists attempt to stigmatize anyone who doesn't pay homage to their 'scientific consensus.'" As a matter of grammar, if not as a matter of fact, this is perfectly clear: The Journal believes no scientific consensus on climate change exists. Likewise, the Journal holds that tax cuts do not reduce revenue and will unfailingly scare-quote any term that implies otherwise--i.e., "The estimated 'cost' of this fix to the Treasury over 10 years would be some $632 billion."

Read the whole story here.

Comments

[fictioneer]

Nicely observed.

[runnerin1]

"Tax cuts don't decrease revenue", what?

[adamsmith3]

Supply-side economics. You cut tax rates to spur investment and economic growth which creates more wealth. So even with lower tax rates, the larger pool of wealth to tax from makes up the difference and even creates a surplus. That is the THEORY, but any real fiscal conservative doesn't rely on a growing market to balance a budget. Though, every time the capital gains tax rate was cut - by Clinton once and then by Bush - the capital gains tax revenues DID go up because the higher rate of return possible enticed more investors in the stock market. I think supply-side economics probably works well for capital gains taxes and business taxes but not-so-much for income taxes.

[youknowwhat]

Wall Street "Neocon" Journal

[jazzblues]

very well said

[Lemmy]

If facts are "slanted" away from the loon left, then the WSJ must be slanted I guess. The Op-Ed page of the WSJ is salient, accurate and always supported by facts. Those who don't agree don't read it.

[prabbit]

Obviously you never saw their coverage of the Clinton years...Me­na drug operations, Vince Foster, Whitewater, et al. Now THAT was loony stuff.

[Lemmy]

And the inaccuracies of their staements were . . . . Remember, we're talking the Clinton years here. Historians are still trying to recall all of the scandals.

[prabbit]

Mena...des­pite Falwell, Scaife, and Chris Ruddy's best efforts, there was nothing there...Vi­nce Foster? Um, it was a suicide, plain and simple. Whitewater? A press manufactured non-scandal.

Ok, better now? There, there.

[VOTER]

ROFL

[commonsensor]

Hey LEMMING - you are aware that the 'OP' part of Op Ed means OPINION PIECE?

They aren't supported by facts and in most papers arent't expected to be (in this readers experience)

I can see you have not been reading it much since The Grim Rupert took over.

[Lemmy]

Opinions expressed in the WSJ are well written and supported by details and facts rather than "It's Bush's fault" for everything. You loons are watching way too much MSNBC.

[BPCentrisAmerican]

I won't read a finical paper, which replaces pragmatic business concepts with any given ideology, especially Supply Side, it did not work well in the 80s, now rendered obsolete with globalization. Free markets are a neo-con pipe dream, every nation protects it's markets to some extent.

[woody7]

"If facts are "slanted" away from the loon left, then the WSJ must be slanted I guess"

Why are you labeled a loon if you are on the left?

[SailFree]

Even IF CO2 were a significant factor, it appears that it's not changing as much as predicted. Indeed, one notes that the computer models the Church of Global Warming relies upon for its pontifications routinely overestimates EVERYTHING.

Climate change may not be as severe as predicted, suggests an international study that shows current modeling of carbon dioxide emissions from soils are overestimated by as much as 20%. The finding has major implications for climate change predictions as annual carbon emissions from soils are estimated to be more than all human-made CO2 emissions combined.
--Dani Cooper, ABC News, 17 November 2008

I suspect they overestimate DELIBERATELY to stampede the public, get government grants, and hamper the economy.

[Lemmy]

Brilliant post SailFree. Kudos!

[11907281]

Everything is religious to you fundamentalists ... please show us where this "Church of Global Warming" is. How were the fundamentalist seminars in Iran?

[LiteSleeper]

Actually if anything, the computer models have been watered down so that the public doesn't know how far along the path of Global Warming we are and how bad it is going to get. According to the Center for Strategic and International Studies even the moderate projection for temperature increase leads to societal strife and breakdown caused by massive immigration flows from failed states and nuclear war between desperate countries. This is projected between 2007 and 2040. Not far away.

http://www.csis.org/media/csis/pubs/071105_ageofconsequences.pdf.

[SailFree]

What's interesting to note is that it is the USA under George Bush that has most reduced air pollution, etc., compared to other countries in Europe and elsewhere, last time I looked. Europe has been all talk, no action.

[RadCenter]

Yes, exporting all of your manufacturing to China is a great way to clean up your air. Europe should try it.

[badfluffy]

HA! See, outsourcing production IS a good thing

[SailFree]

Local Transport Today, 14 November 2008
http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/LTTPeiser-Nov08.pdf

Just as the UK toughens up its Climate Change Bill targets, cracks are emerging in the global effort to cut CO2 emissions. Andrew Forster spoke to climate policy analyst Benny Peiser about the ‘big picture’ debate that could colour transport policy here

Green pressure groups and opposition MPs may have welcomed the Government’s toughening up of the Climate Change Bill’s emissions reduction targets but for Benny Peiser it merely illustrates that Britain’s politicians have no grasp of reality when it comes to cutting emissions.

“The political class of Britain is in denial. They just don’t see or they don’t want to see that they are on their own now. No other country is following. It’s exactly the opposite, they are all retreating, whereas Britain is saying, ‘Oh, we are not going far enough, we need even more reductions­.’ “Everyone else is saying, ‘Hold on, stop, we need to think. Is that really what we want, is that viable economically? Should we go it alone? Or shouldn’t we put some pressure on the rest of the world? But Britain says, ‘We’ll go alone.’ Apart from the question whether it’s actually feasible economically and energy wise and so on, it’s politically nonsensica­l.”

[SailFree]

Indeed, there is no such thing as "scientific consensus" in a determination of fact and logic. There is much disagreement among climate scientists, and counting noses does not determine truth.

It is proper to put quotes around such terms.

[Lemmy]

Those of us who actually question "climate change" get lumped in with h0locaust deniers. The loons don't want to debate because science is not on thier side.

[hmmmmmer]

If you drive a car, you alone put a few pounds of exhaust into the atmosphere each day, multiply that by the number of cars on the road, oh, also start counting industries, and the airlines, trucks, semis, trains, boats, etc etc.

One has to be blind not to see what we have been doing over the past 150 years.

[Harry Scrote]

Motorhead, eh? That explains a lot.

[11907281]

Like "compassionate conservative"? Or like "The Honourable George W Bush"? Or like "America is a force for good in the world"?

[ConfuciusSay-]

Zing!

[JScott]

It's Rupert's now so what else would you expect.

[GoodwithWood]

Rupert bought it because of "Conservative" slant. He didn’t change a thing.

[swift goat pet for truth]

Blah, blah, blah.

Where were they five years ago? Three years ago?

WSJ = ZERO cred. Faux News in print.

[SailFree]

I think that's what they call "shooting the messenger.­"