The Challenge of Understanding the Budget

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/04/26/970290/-The-threat-to-todays-seniors-in-the-Republican-Medicare-Medicaid-plan

The Daily Kos is an unabashedly partisan blog, but this diary by a member raises and important point only tangentially related to bias. The post makes a point about the ramifications of spending cuts to Medicare - a subject surrounded by confusion and misunderstanding. Here the point is about middle-class beneficiaries 55 and older, who are not directly affected in the cuts, but who the author claims would be seriously impacted by the privatization of the program. Although the credibility of the blog is certainly not a given, the point raised here makes it easy to see why this budget debate is so difficult for news outlets to cover. The unfortunate truth is that it's basically impossible to give it a fair and reasonably comprehensive coverage in few stories - it's just too complicated. In order to even begin to grasp the consequences, the public needs to really look at a range of sources, and decide which of the very different interpretations seems correct to them. Unfortunately, as we know, most of them won't bother.

Slate- Wanted: Angry Liberals

If the Ryan budget is so unpopular, where are the town-hall meltdowns?

A Slate article questioned the general lack of reaction to Representative Ryan's controversial budget plan. Around the country, there have been generally low turnout rates at meetings held by congressmen. The story contrasts this subdued atmosphere with the 'explosive' town hall events during the health care debate. In determining why there is such a sharp difference between constituent reactions in the two debates, the article attributes it to a lack of strategy on the Democratic side.

The author notes of the health care debate, "The town halls were overflowing; Republicans returned to Washington after recesses claiming to have survived the biggest crowds they'd ever seen. And that was because all of this was going viral. Talk radio told people where to show up. The town-hall partisans used smartphone cameras and inexpensive video setups to record the damage." He then moves on to assert that Democrats need to undertake similar tactics in order to discredit any Republican budget bill.

However, some aspects of the budget dispute are not comparable to the health care situation. The most important factor is the lack of understanding many Americans appear to have in regards to the debate's progression and the various components of each proposed solution. It was easier for Americans to react to the health care debate and form their own opinions. Health care is a more tangible policy that affects people in a more immediate, direct manner. Budget deficits aren't exactly the top issue on most Americans' minds, especially as such situations are viewed as problems for the 'distant' future. Thus, while some people are dissatisfied with the process, others are more inclined to ignore the debate. Also, because of this complicated nature of the fiscal crisis, it's more difficult for politicians to shape the debate successfully in their favor. Republicans achieved quite a reaction from their constituents in framing their opposition to President Obama's plans for health care reform. The reactionary tactics the article mentions are not successful in the budget debate because many Americans do not have an acute knowledge of what methods and solutions are proposed in each bill.

Multiple Sources at Home and Abroad Shed Light On U.S.-Pakistan Relations

Drone issue puts strain on U.S.-Pakistan relationship

CNN's Pam Benson in Washington, Nasir Habib in Islamabad and Joe Sterling in Atlanta contributed information to this informative story about U.S.-Pakistan in recent years. Framed through a dispute over drone strikes on supposed terrorist targets, the three perspectives give a rounded view of a conflict abroad which has gained limited attention in the media.

Reporting from the ground in Islamabad provides the perspective of the military and government officials, in conjunction with quotes from each source respectively. They demonstrate how the Pakistani's view the conflict and their efforts against known or potential terrorist groups. In contrast, American sources demonstrate what American officials view as a frustratingly lax policy guiding Pakistani tactics in dealing with these terrorist groups. They justify their use of drones as a direct and tangible tactic.

Even so, the story delves into the underlying implications of the conflict and U.S. policies in Pakistan.Emphasis is placed on the threat to Pakistani sovereignty with regards to military operations within their country, as well as the blatant misunderstanding and miscommunication taking place between Pakistani officials, their public and U.S. military officials. This is especially important because the attacks have claimed innocent civilians, most recently 17 in an airstrike in North Waziristan. Civilian deaths are unacceptable and the U.S., in pursuit of what they deem to be an important military goal, seem to wave off the casualties as a war cost; a cost, while tragic, is necessary in pursuit of a larger goal.

The use of think-tank expert to sum up the impact of a potential withdraw placed the conflict into perspective, essentially surmising that even though a withdraw of U.S. military from the base in Pakistan would not necessarily alleviate the conflict as the U.S. assumed. Airstrikes could still be carried out from across the border in Afghanistan because the drones are operated wirelessly.

This accumulation of information from various sources demonstrates what fair coverage of a foreign affairs story should look like. Collaboration between journalists in different parts of the world can frame a conflict for public consumption without presenting a skewed or singular view of a foreign event. The article is informative and probative, demonstrating an investment in the topic and providing a reader with enough information to formulate their own conclusion on the U.S.-Pakistani conflict and relations.

Further, it's an in-depth view of U.S. policies and their impact on our relationships with other countries.

When the press spends time on stories like these, gaining multiple sources and world perspectives, they serve an extrasensory function for the President and Congress. By presenting objective and well-sourced stories about U.S. policies and conflicts abroad, the media either enhances or detracts from the legitimacy of these two branches through their reporting. Whether the outcome of that analysis is helpful or harmful to independent administration of duties on the part of the President or Congress varies, yet the people are well informed in order to make those judgments. A story doesn't have to focus on the President or Congress, nor does it have to be initiated by either side, in order to be relevant and noteworthy to the general public or to shed an informative light.

The public also gets the opportunity to critique and evaluate foreign policies in light of their implementation. This allows the public the opportunity to intelligently convey their support or opposition to particular actions, potentially influence substantive policy changes in those areas.

I'm not a scholar of foreign affairs, but it certainly informed me so that I could be knowledgeable in U.S.-Pakistan relations to some extent.

Under Pressure, Tapper Proves In-Depth Presidential Coverage Lives

ABC News' Jake Tapper Wins Merriman Smith Award for Excellence in Presidential Coverage Under Deadline Pressure for Second Year in a Row

The headline says it all. In the age of new media, when news is constantly changing and it's often difficult to discern what is and what could be news, Jake Tapper "knew the news when the rest of the media sphere was just learning it...able to provide details that few others could match," the White House said in its press release.

Image: Tapper receiving 2010 Merriman Award

Tapper received this award in 2010 for breaking a story about the Director of National Intelligence, Dennis Blair, when he was asked by the President to resign. In 2011 he revealed the tax problems hounding Senator Tom Daschle, which derailed his pursuit of a post as the Secretary of Health and Human Services.

This article and its content stood out because it demonstrates the respectful relationship that exists between the media and the White House. It proves that accurate and sometimes damaging reporting is valued in that it upholds the values of governmental transparency that the American public looks to the media to uphold. The relationship between the administration is not a consistently adversarial relationship as many are often likely to think. The prize carries a $2500 award; there are very few people, if any, who would offer a cash prize to their sworn enemy.

It also demonstrates the "world-class" reporting of tomorrow will lie in the hands of those most able to harness the modes of information dispersion, such as blogs and social media, as Tapper utilized many of them:

"Just trying to keep up with the torrent of scoops, tweets, blog posts, radio debriefs and live broadcast coverage Jake generates around the clock from the White House could be a full-time job for even the most dedicated news junkie," the ABC News President said of Tapper's work.

This is particularly revealing in that the award is specifically given in recognition of the reporter's excellence in providing Presidential Coverage under a deadline, an often trying task when you are attempting to obtain information that is not necessarily made available by the administration itself. It proves that Tapper, in order to obtain information necessary to substantiate his stories, had to acquire proof through alternative channels, apart from the leads traditionally pre-packaged by the press department for consumption and presentation to the public. It appears a particularly daunting task which is hardly imaginable in an environment of constantly developing and changing news, which makes Tappers achievement all the more venerable. It's truly a standard that other members of the media should seek to emulate.

In the mean time, it appears that the relationship between the media and the administration is more amiable than it's given credit for.

How Much Do Americans Really Know About the Budget Debate?

Salon: Beware the "middle ground" of the Great Budget Debate

Salon warns of the assumptions of identifying what ‘centrism’ means in American politics as the budget debate continues. The author of the article, Robert Reich, argues that rather than a halfway point between President Obama’s and Representative Paul Ryan’s solutions, the ideal ‘center’ solution for Americans would shift toward the left. In fact, Reich asserts that if more Americans had a higher political awareness, they would have an overwhelming opposition to the House Republican fiscal plan.

He states, “I'd wager if Americans also knew two-thirds of Ryan's budget cuts come from programs serving lower and moderate-income Americans and over 70 percent of the savings fund tax cuts for the rich -- meaning it's really just a giant transfer from the less advantaged to the super advantaged without much deficit reduction at all -- far more would be against it.”

Partisan politics aside, this article is particularly interesting because it brings up the issue of political knowledge in our society. Reich returns to this problem in discussing the high amount of finances for defense, asserting that “If Americans understood how much they're paying for defense and how little they're getting, they'd demand a defense budget at least 25 percent smaller than it is today.” As Congress and President Obama continue to struggle on constructing a universally satisfactory budget plan, Reich’s article begs the question: Do many Americans actually understand what has been happening throughout the budget debate? Furthermore, are they being equipped with the necessary resources to understand?

The media plays an extremely important role in this, as much of the coverage is focused on framing the fiscal crisis as a dramatic dispute between parties and the Obama administration. Some media outlets have even connected the budget debate to discussion of the 2012 election. This brings forth the issue of what the media’s role should be in conveying political information. Should the media be doing more to ensure the audience has a better comprehension of the issues surrounding the fiscal crisis? News outlets can only go so far in providing the audience with general information, especially when partisanship blinds many people to considering the reasoning of the opposing side(s). There may not be a definite resolution on the qualities of an ideal media, but ignoring important details of the debate in favor of highlighting ideological conflicts is unquestionably harmful.

CNN Discusses Obama's Meetings in Context of Elections

Obama: Deficit reduction must keep alive the American dream

CNN reports on President Obama’s meeting in Reno, Nevada, calling it “his third town hall-style event in three days.” In these ‘town hall-style’ meetings, Obama strives to promote the benefits of his plan for financial reform and deficit reduction. However, the article’s authors believe that these events are doubling as a trial of potential messages and slogans for his re-election campaigns. Interestingly, even before this is clearly stated, the beginning of the article reads as if Obama were holding these meetings solely for campaign purposes. The opening of the story is as follows:

“Over and over Thursday, President Barack Obama told workers at a renewable energy that he is like them. He remembers pumping gas when high oil prices ate a hole in his budget, he said. He knows he wouldn’t have made it through college without scholarships and loans. And now as president, he promised that he won’t let the current debate on deficit reduction deny others the chance for the American dream he has lived.”

The wording and sequence of these sentences slightly reminded me of a political ad one might view on TV. Of course, the meetings have a variety of motives including shaping Obama’s campaign. Nonetheless, these first few sentences frame the event in such a way that readers might interpret the president’s meetings as nothing more than a part of his campaign. Only halfway through the article did the authors focus on the actual topic of Obama’s speech: the fiscal crisis. At this point the story discusses the partisan conflicts over the budget in the past several weeks and the prospects of more debates later this year. This article is a good example of how opening statements can set the tone for the entire presentation of political news.

What is the Public Disapproving Of?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brendan-nyhan/no-evidence-obama-deficit_b_851120.html
In this short post, Brendan Nyhan of Huffpost politics calls out NBC for inaccurately interpreting Presidential popularity polling. In their "First Read" newsletter they postulate that Obama's deficit speech didn't "play well" based on the fact that his popularity had gone down 4 points since a poll a month earlier. As Nyhan points out, however, any events which occurred during the month may have hurt the President's popularity, and trying to prove causality on the speech would be tough. Even more disturbingly, he claims that the Gallup poll which is also cited actually contradicts NBC's analysis when looked at closely.
Huffpost is a liberal blog, so anything reads there needs to be taken with a grain of salt, but this blog isn't really serving a partisan purpose. Nyhan doesn't argue that the President's popularity is down, he just points out that the reason isn't as obvious as NBC makes it seem.

NYT: Medicare Plan Runs Into Bipartisan Opposition

Obama Panel to Curb Medicare Finds Foes in Both Parties

President Obama’s intent to increase the influence of the Independent Payment Advisory Board has both Democrats and Republicans wary. As stated in the New York Times, Obama’s plan is to allow the board to have more power in shaping the deficit reduction plan, particularly in regard to Medicare. The article does a good job of providing multiple perspectives on the matter without personalizing or dramatizing the political debate. Rather than the popular tactic of framing the story within party or ideological conflicts, the NYT focuses on why various groups are opposed to increasing the board’s power. Not only are Republican and Democratic congressmen quoted, but members of the administration and lobby groups are heard as well.

While the article does give more attention to those in opposition to strengthening the panel, the writer includes an interesting statement from a supportive senator, John D. Rockefeller IV. He asserts, “Medicare payment policy should be determined by experts, using evidence, not by the undue influence of special interests.” Though this counterargument receives a very brief mention, it does provide a compelling explanation as to why some individuals might be so adamantly against Obama’s plan.

Framing Political Conflict Within Budget Debate

MSNBC: House passes $6 trillion spending cut plan

MSNBC presented this story via the Associated Press. The article on the Republican-backed bill presented the relevant information, but not without a focus on party hostilities. Throughout the story, references to ideological conflicts between President Obama/Democrats and Republicans were highlighted. MSNBC appeared to focus more on the fighting than the actual story; the 2010 and 2012 elections received some attention, as did tensions within and between the political parties. I thought it was interesting that some of the important information, such as the possible effects of the bill, was placed after discussion of the elections and party conflicts. One of the article's closing statements referred to the potential for "another huge spending fight" in the summer and Republican congressmen being "under heavy tea party pressure" in negotiating more spending cuts. This story essentially followed a back and forth method of dramatization with an emphasis on how ideological differences have impacted and will affect elections. I can easily see readers of either political affiliation overlooking the basic information in this article in favor of focusing on the more dramatized points.

"Risks to Boehner in Debt-Ceiling Brinkmanship"

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/11/risks-to-boehner-in-debt-ceiling-brinksmanship/#more-8391?gwh=594143EC1458742186BDC980FA5A0851

This post from the 538 blog on the New York Times exemplifies the difficulty of covering a topic which is as constant as politics. Even in the midst of a huge crisis, with the possibility of a government shutdown, there is still an urge to look ahead to the ramifications in the next legislative "battle" and the next election cycle.
This particular blog is very blatant in this approach. The final paragraph unabashedly makes use of a game metaphor:

"That’s assuming, of course, that both sides play the “game” optimally, which is far from assured. If Mr. Obama is a good poker player, he’ll know not to disregard Mr. Boehner’s earlier rhetoric, which gave away the vulnerability of his hand. And he’ll recognize Mr. Boehner’s more recent and more confident rhetoric for what it is: the oldest “tell” in the poker book, a show of strength betraying the ultimate weakness of his position."

538 is not completely mainstream, as it caters to a politically involved audience, but as part of the New York Times website it's definitely accessible to a broad audience. Although in many ways it is fair to cover the strategies which are inevitably a part of politics, it shouldn't be at the expense of substantive policy coverage.

A Careful Balance

http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/04/08/roundup.government.shutdown/index.html?iref=obnetwork

I thought this article was a pretty good example of one type of Washington reporting. It's just an opinion piece, which has very short contributions from a range of analysts commenting on the Budget compromise. It might not be very informative for someone looking for the facts of the budget crisis, but it's illuminating in that it shows the many aspects, both political and governmental, of the compromise. Best of all, the piece includes a range of viewpoints, all on one page, which makes it easy for even a very partisan reader to be exposed to opinions they may have avoided in an article by a single author.

The Importance of Accuracy in Ideological Debates

NYT: Progress Reported on Budget Standoff, but No Deal Yet

As the prospect of a federal government shutdown becomes more pressing, the New York Times reports on what progress-if any at all- Congress has made in reaching a compromise. Since much of the trouble with establishing an agreement stems from sharp discord on contentious issues such as funding Planned Parenthood, the article reflects the Republicans and Democrats' blame game of the past several weeks. I do not believe dramatization is a major part of the article, as the politicians have certainly achieved this on their own. However, one aspect that bothered me was the NYT's description of the points of contention.

The article states, "Ideological disputes over abortion financing and changes to the nation’s clean air laws have proven to be major obstacles to a deal." This is in reference to the controversy of providing federal funding to Planned Parenthood, which does much more than just provide abortions. It is referred to as "abortion financing" once again near the story's conclusion. This is especially disappointing since the NYT ran at least one story centered on the Planned Parenthood controversy in the last couple of months: Planned Parenthood Funding is Caught in Budget Feud.

By reducing Planned Parenthood to an issue of "abortion financing", the NYT is contributing to the mistaken yet common perception that all this institution does is provide abortions. It's a seemingly harmless, small reference in the article, but the impact it can have on an uninformed reader is significant. This also illustrates the extent of the influence politicians can wield over the media. Many Republican congressmen have pressed the connection between Planned Parenthood and abortion services, thus media outlets such as the NYT are now more inclined to focus on this aspect of the clinic.

Barack Obama 2012 Campaign Launch Video - "It Begins With Us"

President Obama issued a re-election video in which he does not appear.
Seems like an interesting strategy. It doesn't address any of the current issues facing our society. Instead, it depicts constituents from all parts of the country and of varying racial groups. The ad doesn't talk policy at all, just features individuals from businessman, to college student to a single mom all talking about how the election in is "in our hands" and "we have to make it happen." It's not meant to be in informative or smear potential opponents, it's just a tame re-election campaign video that only boasts it's real purpose at the very end with the iconic Obama logo.
It makes me wonder how hard Obama is really going to have to work as an incumbent President? This message of the campaign being in the hands of the people kind of makes it sound as though he will be too busy to be on the campaign trail again himself. It's a reasonable assumption given that it is currently his job, but was it a good idea to advertise that fact so early on? Republicans might take this as a sign of arrogance on Obama's part, perhaps even suggest that he's "out of touch" with the people.
I wonder how this will play out in the coming months as the field of Republican challengers continues to emerge? Will Obama really be able to leave it in the hands of the people, or will the field of competition lure him into a cross-country campaign?