This week Leonard Downie, the former Executive Editor of the Washington Post, attacked blogs in general and The Huffington Post specifically, saying they're "parasites" who live off "journalism produced by others." His comment would have carried more weight if Downie's old newspaper still produced all its own journalism, nstead of outsourcing a portion of its reporting function to a bureau funded by a special interest group. (See correction/clarification, below.)
Downie's comment about blogs whose "opinions reflecting a predictable point of view on the left or the right of the political spectrum" unfortunately also applies to his former employer. This slant is most unforgivable in its news coverage, given that paper's claim of journalistic objectivity. In fact, the Post's coverage of Social Security and the budget deficit makes it the poster child for media outlets who are accelerating their own demise by compromising their professional standards in the pursuit of leaner business models.
It's not news that there's a highly-funded campaign to cut Social Security, primarily by manipulating the public into thinking the program's in an urgent financial crisis. (See here and here, for starters.) A lot of politicians in Washington want to go along with this idea, but they have a problem: Voters hate it. A "bipartisan" consensus to cut the program, either by reducing benefits or increasing the retirement age, would amount to a suicide pact between politicians of both parties.
How do politicians and their benefit-cutting benefactors handle that? By concealing their true intentions long enough to change public opinion. One of the best ways to do that is through compliant press organs who keep pumping out misinformation and prefabricated talking points. That's where the new Post comes in (Washington, not Huffington).
Campaign for America's Future co-director Roger Hickey explained how the Washington Post outsourced its entire financial division to the "Fiscal Times," a "news" operation financed by Pete Peterson. Peterson's the right-wing billionaire best known for his views on Social Security (cut it), the deficit (slash it), and taxes (he doesn't want to pay 'em). As Hickey noted, the very first article produced for the Post was headlined "support grows for reducing the nation's debt," and only presented opinions that aligned with Peterson's. Economist Dean Baker pointed out that the article falsely stated that social spending costs were "skyrocketing." Even worse, it cited people who work for institutions that Peterson finances, without noting a conflict of interest.
The dictionary definition of a "parasite" is "an organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host." Actually, blogs drive readers to newspapers, which should increase ad revenue and contribute to their survival. And to me, that definition of "parasite" more closely suits a billionaire who doesn't want to pay his full share of taxes -- but then, anybody reading me knows they're getting a political opinion. (Apparently it also means "a professional dinner guest, especially in ancient Greece," but I'm not enough of a Washington insider to think of an appropriate Sally Quinn joke.)
Peterson was also a major backer of the President's Deficit Commission, which we now learn has a "heavy tilt" toward spending cuts rather than tax increases -- which presumably includes tax increases for billionaires. Quelle surprise.
On the other hand, politicians aren't insane. They can tell which way the wind blows, as Dave Johnson observed. The Democratic Party is trying to emphasize Social Security as a campaign issue, while in many cases giving itself wiggle room for a post-election deal. A number of Congressional Democrats are signing a pledge to oppose any cuts, Sens. Sherrod Brown and Bernie Sanders are introducing a "sense of the Senate resolution" to oppose any cuts and encourage lifting the cap on payroll taxes.
That leaves the anti-Social Security crowd in stealth mode, attempting to camouflage their intentions with confusing or indirect language. Alice Rivlin, an economist known for her longstanding advocacy of Social Security cuts, suggested this week that this a "convenient time" to push benefit reductions and along with some (presumably symbolic) revenue increases. "The only better time to fix Social Security than this year," said Rivlin, "is last year or the year before." She added: "The stars are aligned." That may be the most inaccurate astrological reading since Jeanne Dixon predicted the Beatles would die in a plane crash in 1964.
"Fix" Social Security? Yeah, yeah, yeah. It sounds reasonable enough -- until you realize that Rivlin has a history of using that phrase as a euphemism for cutting it.
The Republicans who are pushing the hardest for cuts have suddenly gone vague, as in their pledge to require "a full accounting of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, setting benchmarks for these programs and reviewing them regularly and preventing the expansion of unfunded liabilities." When it comes to public opinion, they're running scared and could use some help.
Enter the Washington Post, which published an article today that said the GOP plan lacked specifics, and then gave three examples -- all benefit cuts -- of ways to fulfill the Pledge's inchoate directive. A reader wouldn't know from reading this article that revenue increases, like the simple act of raising the payroll tax cup, would also ensure that Social Security never has "unfunded liabilities." Dean Baker dissected the column further, but that's the main takeaway.
As someone who's worked in freelance journalism, I'm actually quite sympathetic to Downie's concerns. But get with the program, man! While it's not perfect, The Huffington Post is hiring journalists. The Washington Post is laying them off and outsourcing their jobs to ideologues. Downie's wrath is misdirected. The news industry is in crisis, but we can't fix it by selling journalistic integrity to the highest bidder.
The Washington Post has some great people on staff, including one of the blogging world's most effective and informative writers, Ezra Klein. Ezra's an excellent example of the way advocacy writing and journalism can be integrated online (even if we've differed here and there). And yet part of his effectiveness comes from the fact that he often does exactly what The Huffington Post does -- he "aggregates" stories and comments on them.
People who come to The Huffington Post expect to see the news reported -- and "aggregated" -- with a political slant. People who read the Washington Post expect objective journalism. When it comes to Social Security, whose readers are getting a raw deal? I share Len Downie's concerns, but he should be focusing his attention somewhere a little closer to home.
CLARIFICATION: This piece as originally written stated that the Post had "outsourced an entire news department to a special interest group." That was incorrect: The paper does, in fact, still have reporters on the financial beat. Here are the specifics: The first Post/Fiscal Times article was published on December 31, 2009 (the highly slanted "nation's debt" piece cited above), after the partnership was announced on December 17. The Post's own ombudsman found the story slanted ("not sufficiently balanced"), chided the paper for a "lack of transparency," and agreed that the timing of it was "problematic, coming weeks before the Senate may consider the (Debt) commission idea."
The timing was also troubling for other reasons. The Post cut a reported 10-12 positions the month before this relationship was announced, after conducting its fourth round of employee buyouts the previous March and closing its book review section that February. (The wave of layoffs began in 2006 with a reduction of approximately 80 journalists' jobs, about 9% of its reportorial staff.)
The above is reason for concern, and the fundamental questions about the Post/Fiscal Times relationship remain. Nevertheless, our original statement was incorrect and is hereby retracted with apologies.
(Conflict of interest note: I frequently write for the Huffington Post, but am not paid by them - see, I told you they weren't perfect. I am a Senior Fellow with the Campaign for America's Future and support policies that can ensure Social Security's solvency without resorting to benefit cuts. Those policies exist.)
Richard (RJ) Eskow, a consultant and writer (and former insurance/finance executive), is a Senior Fellow with the Campaign for America's Future. This post was produced as part of the Strengthen Social Security campaign. Richard also blogs at A Night Light.
He can be reached at "rjeskow@ourfuture.org."
Website: Eskow and Associates
Follow Richard (RJ) Eskow on Twitter: www.twitter.com/rjeskow
HuffPost TV: Arianna: Special Interest Groups Are Buying Public Policy (VIDEO)
If i'm correct, the WaPo is currently flaying about to name a new pundit. I would suppose that it will be another right wing nut to go with their already slanted view pundits of the extreme right wing nuts, they already have.
Most of all the news divisions incorrectly talk about S/S going broke, but it is solid until 2037. Therefore, they LIE and they are helping the Republicans sell this LIE. The only way for S/S to go broke is to open the trust fund and throw the MILLIONS on the table at the Wall St. casino. They want to raise the age, while working people who work hard jobs, will be left with nothing, when they can not longer can hold down a job for health reasons. The Republiicans not only want to give Wall St a big tax cut, but then they want to gamble with S/S......Bush tried that, and look where the elderly would be, today.
We are slowly being overtaken by the "Pravda" corporate MSM, who LIE with the best of them. Now we have TPMisfits loons on ballots.
RAISE THE CAP!
Why is the self discredited Alan Simpson still hanging around?
Fire this enemy of the people.
and . . . RAISE THE CAP.
We fail repeatedly to do the simple and the obvious because somebody profits from it not being done.
We must continuously ask the question of the ancient Romans - "Cui bono?"
Who profits?
Who profits from the continuation of our problems and our failures?
Who profits from the erosion of our rights and ideals?
Who profits from our disagreements with each other?
Who profits from the savage despoiling, exploitation, and destruction of our resources?
Who profits from our fear, hatred, and prejudice?
Who profits from our ignorance, our unwillingness to learn?
All those who profit from all of those things want them to continue, to worsen, and will act continually to achieve those objectives.
We do fail ourselves in myriad ways as people, but as people we do also have external enemies, who do not think like we ought to think, feel like we ought to feel, or act like we ought to act.
We have an ironic condition in our educational system, in that the well endowed and successful as students are far more likely to join the chase for profit than to apply themselves to service. They join the enemy team, leaving only the dull, weak, ungraceful, and uninventive kids chosen last again in the choose up of life.
A recent post here claimed that government employees are far better paid than private sector employees. Of course, the exact opposite is true.
Look at the "thought" processes and virtues of the average member of congress, as indeed revealed by their own words and actions. Does anybody really think this crew is reflective of the best we have to offer?
The people are not behaving effectively either to preserve nor to benefit from our nation's promise. The enemies of the people are prevailing, and winning big.
It is small solace that they will wind up having won a wasteland, as the poet said.
Another poet said, "A hard rain's a-gonna fall."
How do you like the rain?
Let's do better, folks. It's our only chance.
Peace, best wishes.
Retirement for those physically or mentally disabled in Military service should be left intact.
Are they so much better than the rest of us. The answer is that they are worse.
When they reduce all of these things, and vote against tax breaks for the rich, then I might...might pay attention. Right now, they are whistling passed the graveyard.
They are hoping people are stupid enough to believe the 2.5 trillion dollars collected from working people and invested in the safest investment on earth is gone. This is BS. The working class of America loaned their retirement nest egg to the US government, who then proceeded to spend it recklessly on a pair of unnecessary wars, one based on a pack of lies, and also on exorbitant tax cuts skewed toward the already stinking rich.
No, the "money is not gone" or "nothing but IOU's." The money is guaranteed by the full faith of the US government, exactly like all the money China and Saudi Arabia has invested in US treasuries. Calling valid and legal loans "nothing but IOU's" goes against every banking principal since the beginning of time. Bush should have been impeached when he publicly denigrated the quality of US treasury bills. It was a direct violation of his oath to uphold the constitution.
We know exactly who the government gave the money to. They wasted over a trillion dollars on unnecessarily wars. They wasted massive money on corrupt defense contractors like Halliburton. They gave it to already stinking rich people in the form of tax cuts 100 times bigger than an average person.
By the way, I am a FORMER Young Republican and am sick about what the Once Grand Old Party (OGOP) has become.
The only way the MSM will regain it's readers is by regaining it's integrity.
Where do you get your information? The Washington Post?
The real theft from Social Security is if they get by with increasing the retirement age. That will amount to 15 to 20 cut in the younger worker's benefits.
Many politicians think they will be 'tough' and do the hard work of cutting Social Security. Actually if they do cut benefits, they are abusing the future elderly.
Right now the young worker has the same benefits we have. The left is fighting to keep it that way.
With the raises in the cap we should pay younger workers more.