How Washington journalists conspire to not report accurately the President’s yearly budget proposal.


Please consider donating to Behind the Black, by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, as outlined in the tip jar to the right. Your support will allow me to continue covering science and culture as I have for the past twenty years, independent and free from any outside influence.

How Washington journalists conspire to not report accurately the President’s yearly budget proposal.

The article focuses on the bad reporting in connection with the Obama administration’s most recent budget proposal, but the criticism applies to every budget announcement since the 1970s.. Each year, the President’s budget proposal in the January/February/March time frame increases the amount the federal government will spend from year to year, as far as the eye can see. Washington journalists however report that the proposal cuts the budget instead. How can this be? As the writer notes,

In the 1970s, Congress tortured the English language by requiring that if federal spending grows less than expected, it should officially be called a spending cut. Outside of the beltway bubble, nobody talks like that. Reporters are letting the public down by accepting the word games of politicians and not reporting the real numbers in the language of ordinary Americans.

I have been fighting this dishonest reporting for decades. It is not the business of reporters to help the federal government get more money. They should report the budget, as it is.

Share

3 comments

  • Publius 2

    The budget facade is only one part of the story. Consider how the media report the weekly and monthly unemployment numbers, such as the rosy declarations about 175,000 new jobs in February being “better than expected.” The statistic that every employment report should repeat is that it takes between 180,000 and 200,000 new jobs a month just to keep pace with population growth. So, suddenly, 175k does not seem so positive. Then there is that 6.7 percent unemployment figure, an artificial construct based on the number of people out of work who are actively looking for work. Does anyone truly accept the fact that 92 million able-bodied people in this country who are not working represent 6.7 percent unemployment? By my crude calculation, that works out to a labor force of 1.373 billion. Then there are the changes in the stock market, also dutifully reported each day, as though the economy was strong and healthy, but neglecting to mention the $100 billion per month of infusion (of non-existent money) by the Federal Reserve. It is astounding how far from reality we have veered without protest. How much more of this will we accept?

  • Tim M

    You go boy!! Thanks for the strong read. Nice!

  • Cotour

    Its just lies buying time.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *