Wash.Times Amy Fagan joins CBS in lying about Social Security projections

[papau]

Wash. Times Bill Sammon and Amy Fagan wrong on Social Security projections - "forget" that post end of trust fund, system still pays 78% of benefits - - instead say that system will "become unable to pay any benefits as early as 2042."

In the March 10 edition of The Washington Times, reporters Bill Sammon and Amy Fagan http://washingtontimes.com/national/20050310-121432-2383r.htm falsely claimed that under current law, the Social Security system will "become unable to pay any benefits as early as 2042." In fact, according to the most recent projections http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TR/TR04/II_project.html#wp105057 by the Social Security trustees, the system will be able to pay promised benefits in full until 2042, at which point it would still be able to cover 73 percent of scheduled benefits. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projects http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=6064&sequence=0 that the system will be able to fully pay promised benefits into 2052, at which point it would still be able to cover 78 percent of scheduled benefits.

In December, Media Matters for America noted a similar claim by CBS Newshttp://mediamatters.org/items/top/200412160014.


http://mediamatters.org/items/200503110002

[FormerDittoHead]

1. Ouch! Direct misstatement of facts!

Hey, I thought these right-wingers were tired of the "spin"???

I thought they wanted the "news" to be "unbiased"?

Even when I was a Rush Limbaugh fan, I had to bend over backwards trying to see this bias, and decided it was based in the selection of stories, rather than the actual text.

Even for the ultra-right wing Washington Times, I would expect a statement like this to be buried in a quote or citation, but it's directly stated in the report as fact along the lines of "there was a fire at the corner of 42nd and Broadway" and "Tomorrow's forecast: rain high of 42".

I guess all the gloves are off, but why not? I'm only saddened, however, to see the state of affairs slip so quickly into this facist state of affairs. If the only "watchdogs" we have left are relatively unpromoted websites which are discounted by the MSM because they're perceived as competition, the slope just gets more and more slippery.

[papau]

2. the gloves are off - and have been for 10 years - as the media and Truth

part ways.

Now just as everyone can have a personal opinion, the media seems to fell that everyone can have their personal set of "facts" in any discussion.

[Demit]

3. Here's a great little article that shows up the journalist big boys:

Somebody posted this in a thread from Friday. It's from a Louisville paper and it's the way reporting is supposed to be. It was so refreshing I emailed a fervent thanks to the reporter:


Some comments stick to facts, others don't
Support for claims not always evident


"President Bush offered only a few facts yesterday about Social Security, his plan for it and the economy before holding a general conversation with five guests selected to speak at the appearance.

<...>

"A worker, making $35,000 over his or her lifetime, if allowed to set aside 4 percent of the payroll taxes into a personal account, over time by the time he or she retires will have earned $250,000 as part of the retirement system. Now that's her money. That's money that she will be using for retirement."

He didn't explain how he reached that calculation.

White House press spokesman Taylor Gross said he did not have that information but referred to the White House Web site section on Social Security. That site provides the same example but doesn't cite a source. Gross was unavailable for a further explanation..."

more at http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AI...

[papau]

4. Actuaries have analysed the WH site and shown the errors - but the

media has a hard time talking to Actuaries.

If the world was logical I think I'd have a great retirement job as guru to the media - but no one has come to the door with a job offer as yet! :-)

[Demit]

5. That's what was so heartening about this article. The writer stuck to a

very narrow focus: she took a couple of Bush statements from his town meeting, double-checked them herself, and pointed out how they differed from the actual facts. You know, what reporters used to do.

Her point was to show how Bush's statements were not borne out by some very simple, and simply-researched, facts. No "critics charge" or "some say" anywhere in the piece. It was a beautiful thing to behold.

[papau]

6. true :-)

:-)