Right’s Idea of Bias: Any News That Might Reflect Well on Obama

In an article called “Spin of the Times: Bias cloaked as Front-Page News,” Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit complains that the New York Times runs news stories that are biased in favor of “Democrats and leftish ideas.”

His example of this is a recent article called “In Hopeful Sign, Health Spending Is Flattening Out.” The article looks at the fact that health care costs in the U.S. have risen much less sharply than expected in the past couple of years, which of course is good news to anyone who cares about, you know, American citizens and the American economy.

Is the story biased toward “Democrats and leftish ideas”? Here’s the weird part — Reynolds does not show that the article misrepresents or leaves out facts to make the article appear to be favorable to the Left. He quotes the article itself to argue that some of the cost slowdown is because of the recession, not because “Obamacare” is working.

The article is full of caveats and to-be-sures like this: “The growth rate mostly slowed as millions of Americans lost insurance coverage along with their jobs. Worried about job security, others may have feared taking time off work for doctor’s visits or surgical procedures, or skipped nonurgent care when money was tight.” Or this: “Some experts caution that there remains too little data to determine whether the current slowdown will become permanent, or whether it is merely a blip caused by the economy’s weakness.”

But, we’re told, “[M]any other health experts say that there is just enough data to start detecting trends — even if the numbers remain murky, and the vast complexity of the national health care market puts definitive answers out of reach.”

At this point, an editor might have spiked the story, commenting that all we’ve got are dueling experts who admit that they don’t really know what’s going on amid their “murky” numbers.

But the story is that health care costs in the U.S. have risen much less sharply than expected in the past couple of years. This is from the article:

In 2009 and 2010, total nationwide health care spending grew less than 4 percent per year, the slowest annual pace in more than five decades, according to the latest numbers from the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services. After years of taking up a growing share of economic activity, health spending held steady in 2010, at 17.9 percent of the gross domestic product….

… The implications of a bend in the cost curve would be enormous. Policy makers on both sides of the aisle see rising health care costs as the central threat to household budgets and the country’s fiscal health. If the growth in Medicare were to come down to a rate of only 1 percentage point a year faster than the economy’s growth, the projected long-term deficit would fall by more than one-third.

That’s a significant bit of data. Just because the data don’t clearly show why it’s happening doesn’t mean it isn’t happening.

If you read the New York Times story — which Reynolds doesn’t link to, of course — you see that it provides a number of possible reasons for the slowdown in cost increase, some of which reflect well on the Obama Administration and some of which do not. And it provides the “bad for Obama” possible reasons first, before going on to the “maybe Obama’s policies have something to do with this” reasons. Reynolds quotes those “bad for Obama” reasons with approval and then complains the article is biased because … well, why? Because it then goes on to provide some “good for Obama” reasons as well?

What Reynolds is saying is that this bit of news must be suppressed until someone can show decisively that it’s really a bad thing that is all Obama’s fault.

And what makes this even more hysterical is that Reynold’s piece is published in the New York Post, one of the nation’s foremost purveyors of pure, old-fashioned yellow journalism. For example, in today’s Post there’s an article by a guy named Glenn Reynolds with an alarming headline about spin and bias at the New York Times, but if you read the article it’s just a highly biased piece about a Times article that really isn’t biased at all. Reynolds just doesn’t like it because it isn’t anti-Obama enough for his taste.

11 thoughts on “Right’s Idea of Bias: Any News That Might Reflect Well on Obama

  1. At this point in time, since Conservatives don’t appear to have any at all, ALL ideas are “leftish.”

    I’m weary of this right-wing clown circus, and I really don’t understand why more people aren’t?
    They talk a lot, but don’t say anything.
    Sure, they bitch and moan and groan, but they don’t offer anything except the same things that have been proven to fail for over 30+ years! How many times can they polish and re-polish the same old turds before people finally realize that ‘them there’s turds’ – NOT DIAMONDS!

    And yeah, I know that a lot of people don’t pay attention to these things as much as I, and other blog readers and commenters, do, and remain (willfully?) ignorant.
    But I think we’re at a tipping point where, amidst the carnage, there’s just way too much bliss.

  2. What Reynolds is saying is that this bit of news must be suppressed until someone can show decisively that it’s really a bad thing that is all Obama’s fault.

    Funny, because they treat any sign of good or hopeful news as IMPLICITLY supportive of the president, even if it doesn’t say “This is great news for Obama,” but when you call them on their constant, blatant racism they’re all “SHOW ME WHERE I SAID BLACK PEOPLE ARE INFERIOR I DIDN’T EXPLICITLY SAY THAT SO NEENER NEENER NEENER I’M NOT A RACIST YOU’RE THE REAL RACIST.”

    I remember when conservatives liked America.

  3. The angst evident among Republicans when it comes to Obama has reached the point of becoming a vendetta – a blood feud, a vengeance campaign. I agree with Massimo that it’s driven by racism because it’s irrational, phobic, certifiably clinical.

    It’s also occurred to me that you can’t change the minds of people who have reached their beliefs by means other than using their minds.

  4. Felicity, “It’s also occurred to me that you can’t change the minds of people who have reached their beliefs by means other than using their minds.” LOVE that.
    Whatever they use to form ‘beliefs’ is not available to mere humans. What to do when logic and facts mean NOTHING!!!!!

  5. I agree with Massimo that it’s driven by racism because it’s irrational, phobic, certifiably clinical.

    I agree also…I think back to the episode with Joe Walsh of “you lie” fame.That to me was the most egregious display of teabagger nurtured GOP racism. I’m sure Mitch McConnell and the rest of the boys were back slapping good ol’ Joe behind the scenes for putting that uppitty niggra in his place. Their racism shows boldly no matter how well they think they’re hiding it.

  6. Oh, let me amend my comment above..I guess I spoke prematurely without researching previous instances of Congressmen calling the President of the United States a liar during a State of the Union address. I’m sure it’s a common occurence that I’m just not fully aware of due to my lack poliltical knowledge..I might be ascribing racism to a situation where none ever existed….so I’ll ask any of you who might a good knowledge of the history of State of the Union addresses…What other Presidents aside from Obama have been openly called out on such a stately occassion for being a liar?

  7. I am looking for some sarcasm from the staff of the president. Something along the lines…

    Oh, We are so sorry that we brought up OBL and we see how it upsets you that this administration brought him to justice – not to mention Davey Jones Locker – and the previous administration gave up on him. If that fact offends you we’ll be sure not to bring it up again.

    What else is there in your list of the President’s list of accomplishments that offends you. We want to make sure that the GOP has veto power over how we run our campaign…

    And then go down the list……

    Can we bring up Lily Ledbetter?

    What about jobs numbers in context?

    Wall Street and the Dow Jones compared to when Obama took office..

    The Gulf Oil spill?

    With each item, make sure the difference between then and now is explained with a polite inquiry if the item is fair game in the election. Then point out that turnabout should be fair play – Obama should have veto power over which of Romney’s accomplishments is allowed, but Romney hasn’t any accomplishments except Obamacare – I mean, Romneycare, and we are looking forward to a discussion of that…

  8. I can only imagine a congressman shouting out “you lie!” during a G.W. Bush speech; it would have been “sacrilege!!!” followed by a hitch at “gitmo”.

  9. They all need to be exiled somewhere, away from civil people, with no weapons but sticks and stones. Maybe in Wyoming. We could put up a big fence and patrol it with drones. We could drop food in to be humane, but let them manage their own health care, since they hate healthcare so much. And the only people we would let out were those who showed signs of being able to engage in cooperative behavior and other signs of higher functioning.

  10. I see “Joey bag o’ hammers” Arpaio is at it again.
    I urge all you birfers out there to go to your local branch office of the FBI and file a complaint against the Obama administration in person. That’ill show him!

Comments are closed.