In yet another example of the craven, lazy Beltway press providing cover for a weakened GOP, we have today's Washington Post story by Shailagh Murray and Paul Kane,
"Republicans Urged To Back Relief Package":
Participants in the meetings said Obama conceded that both the House and Senate versions of the bill had been larded with Democratic spending priorities and sought to reassure GOP lawmakers that their concerns would receive consideration during final negotiations.
This story appeared in my local paper, the Oregonian, and inspired a rant that I shared with the Oregonian, WaPo, and these esteemed so-called reporters. Follow me below the fold for my reaction and for media contact information so that you too, can drop a line to the reporters and/or editors to let them know that readers are sick and tired of this hackery.
I realize this letter to the editor is way too long to be published; this was one of those times where I just wanted to talk back to the reporters.
In reading Shailagh Murray and Paul Kane's article "Obama courts GOP on stimulus" in today's Oregonian, I thought that the paper had accidentally reprinted a press release from the Republican Party.
In the Oregonian's version of this article, it isn't until the 9th paragraph that Murray and Kane bother to outline the actual contents of the bill. Before that, they focus entirely on the political sideshow, and what's worse, they use loaded language that could have come straight from GOP flacks: "Obama conceded that....the bill had been larded with Democratic spending priorities." So therefore the President is weak ("conceded") and his priorities are harmful fat ("lard")? Excuse me?
Note that the reporters don't define these priorities or use the word "infrastructure," let alone roads, bridges, schools, alternative energy, jobs, or anything of substance. Strong majorities of Americans, across all ideological divides, support massive spending to create jobs, improve our infrastructure, and develop alternative energy. The weakened Republicans know this, and are hiding behind misleading rhetoric. It's sad to see these Washington Post reporters parroting their party line.
The reporters add that "the final product is certain to fall well short of the Republican ideal of seeing a package heavy with tax breaks and light on new domestic spending." Again, no mention of who the Republicans want to give tax breaks to (corporations and the wealthy, just like Bush - that worked great) and the kind of spending they are opposed to - again, the job-creating infrastructure rebuilding and focus on alternative energy that most Americans strongly support.
The reporters chose to focus their story on the politics of the negotiating over the bill (as well as their breathless judgment on how this political skirmish impacts the entire trajectory of the Obama presidency, 7 days in), rather than explaining to readers the substance of the bill and what it is intended to accomplish. (This is similar to the media's execrable coverage of the campaign, which endlessly flogged the horse race and "optics" of the race rather than taking the time to explore the substance of the candidates' stands on issues and what their likely policy actions would mean to Americans' lives.)
The final straw is the article's conclusion that "the first high-stakes vote of his presidency looked likely to break along the same party lines that he had pledged to break down as a candidate." Translation: if the Republicans continue to play their petty games and obstruct progress, then it's all Obama's fault, he has failed, the end.
With this kind of reporting, it's easy to see why American newspapers are dying out.
Sincerely,
Ruth in OR
It would be great to have more feedback (do better than I did and make it short, 150 words or less, if you can): letters@washpost.com
Shailagh Murray email contact form
Paul Kane email contact form