I’ve been on the road recently in some oddly remote regions and more or less out of touch with the news in all forms. Well, except for that too close encounter with Fox News a few days ago.
I may be the last person on earth never to have watched an episode of Fox News, except for a few YouTubed versions. It was on in the dining room of the place I was staying.
I have always assumed that Left criticisms of Fox News were a bit overblown. Mea maxima culpa. I was very wrong.
In fact, I’ve come to the conclusion that Fox must have writers who essentially function more or less as Leno’s comedy writers. They pick some issue and tease it out to the point of absurdity. In the case of Leno, it’s to get laughs and, perhaps, a bit of insight into an issue.
In the case of Fox morning news, the writers are members of the school of the absurd. They take an issue in the news - or out of it - and give it the most absurd spin possible. I’d have to say, in the right context, it might be easier to take it as very dark humor, but in the context of a dining room with people who, well, turned on Fox news, eating quickly and leaving seemed the best choice.
I’ll mention just a couple segments as examples. (And, truthfully, I left, because I couldn’t take any more, being someone who values truth and reality.)
Stimulus Money
One segment was on the stimulus money. Now if you were a comedy writer, you might do something sexual with the concept. If you were a straight mainstream news program you’d either do a feel good story or a report that blows up tiny problems into big ones while ignoring context and the bigger picture.
So what would you do if you were writing for Fox?
You’d claim that a new study (not identified) has shown that not one dime of stimulus money has gone to the states that most need the money. It has all gone to the richest states. This claim was repeated over and over. With increasing outrage.
Now, a moment’s thought would tell you this level of disparity is just not possible. It may be that more money has gone to some states than others. In fact, that’s probably . . . certainly true. States are not equal in so many ways that could affect the distribution of the money. They vary by population, need, industries, ways they could use the money, ability to ask for the money, just to name a few.
But no money going to the poorest states? Not possible. Or at least not an action that could be blamed on the Obama administration.
Consider the added weeks of unemployment insurance as just one example.
On the table as part of the stimulus package were increased levels and weeks of unemployment insurance, but states also were being asked to update their laws.
The country’s 74-year-old unemployment insurance system could be getting a face-lift soon.
As part of the economic recovery package making its way through Congress, the federal government would boost jobless benefits this year by $25 per week as well as spend billions to encourage states to modernize their unemployment insurance programs.
Economic stimulus legislation approved last week by the House Ways and Means Committee would give states incentives to make it easier for part-time workers to qualify for unemployment benefits and provide benefits to people leaving work for a “compelling family reason.” That bill was slated to be folded into the broader American Recovery and Reinvestment Act for consideration by the full House this week.
The sweeping $825 billion legislation reflects priorities outlined by President Barack Obama, who hopes to sign a recovery plan into law within a month.
Some states, however, refused to take all or various parts of the stimulus money or refused to enact changes for political reasons. These states included, at various times, South Carolina, Louisiana, Alabama, Florida and Virginia.
And Texas.
Texas is shaping up as a test case, because more than 23,000 workers are losing their jobs every week and $556 million in federal aid is sitting on the table, unclaimed.
Texas is one of only four states — the others are Alabama, Florida and Virginia — that rejected federal stimulus dollars connected with reforming unemployment insurance. Thirty-six states qualify for the federal money, including more than two dozen that adopted reforms this year, and the rest are still debating the issue.
States have until 2011 to make the changes and apply for the money.
Months ago, Gov. Rick Perry was quick to denounce the stimulus offer and criticize Washington’s "bailout mentality." He said the feds were trying to dictate state policy by forcing changes that would hurt employers and job growth.
The reforms would expand coverage by making more people (primarily low-wage earners) eligible for benefits. It would add about 2.5 percent to the state’s annual payout for unemployment benefits, so there’s no threat of Texas becoming a welfare haven.
The state already ranks dead last in participation rate, with just 24 percent of unemployed workers getting benefits, compared with a national average of 41 percent.
Texas employers pay an average unemployment tax of 0.29 percent of total wages, 49th in the country and less than half the national average, according to the National Employment Law Project in New York.
. . .
Reforming unemployment insurance would help struggling families in Texas and reduce the impact on small businesses, they said.The money would also stimulate the state economy. Unemployment benefits are generally spent quickly, and they have a 2-to-1 multiplier effect. By contrast, tax cuts are often saved or used to pay down debt.
Perry hasn’t been moved by the arguments. Last week, he reiterated his opposition, saying the reforms would burden employers.
"Just because Washington, D.C., thought it was a good idea doesn’t necessarily mean it’s a good idea for Texas," Perry told the Houston Chronicle.
A spokeswoman says he has always opposed this plan on principle, believing it was bad for job creation. But many believe that Perry is trying to score political points by appealing to conservatives who oppose the stimulus.
Either way, he’s in touch with most Texans. In a Texas Lyceum poll conducted in June, 58 percent of respondents said they agreed with Perry that the stimulus money had too many strings attached. Thirty-four percent said he was wrong to reject the aid.
So, again, the Fox claim was that there was no stimulus money going to the poorest states. One reason for less than the available money going to those states was because of ideologically driven choices made by those states’ leaders.
The source for the Fox story seems to have been a Pro Publica story that certainly did get headlines that suggested what Fox claimed. For example, the conservative Detroit Free Press had this headline: Stimulus money doesn't flow to neediest places, analysis finds followed by this first paragraph. “An analysis of the distribution of federal stimulus dollars suggests the money is not being directed to areas of greatest distress, especially in Michigan.”
But all you had to do was read the next two paragraphs to see that money was being distributed to all areas, but not in an even way.
The analysis by the online news service Pro Publica examined $55 billion in stimulus spending so far -- the portion that could be traced to the local level -- and found distribution to be "uneven" and "contrary to measures of need."
The report showed per-capita stimulus spending by county of $181 nationally and $148 in Michigan.
The next paragraphs give dollar and unemployment figures for four Michigan counties that show a mix of results but not enough information to tell how uneven the dollars really were. For example, the unemployment figures given were static, but the actual rates of unemployment have not been. As a result, a county hit by an auto plant shutdown recently could have a very high unemployment rate, but only recently, so they would have received fewer dollars during the period studied.
Pro Publica noted that Michigan's story is not repeated elsewhere.
Nationwide, the results showed no significant relationship across counties when spending was compared against unemployment, poverty, race and income. Looking within state boundaries, spending did have a relationship to unemployment in a few cases — but not always in the same direction.
In New Jersey, for example, counties with high unemployment were more likely to get more stimulus money per person. The opposite proved true in Michigan, which has the nation’s highest jobless rate at 15.2 percent.
The actual Pro Publica story is much more nuanced and provides insight into the economy and how the stimulus money is being spent . . . and problems with tracking spending. Now those are real issues, issues that can be addressed. But not if you watch Fox.
Sex and the Single Little Girl
One other segment started as an interview with an author of a book on sex but quickly morphed into a story about a French baby doll that encourages little girls to breastfeed the doll. The author looked totally nonplussed that her 45 seconds in the spotlight were totally eclipsed by expressions of disgust over this doll and the very idea that an innocent little girl would ever consider breastfeeding a doll. The blonde chick was especially outraged and claimed her children would never do something so lewd and disgusting.
Oh, come on. Kids imitate their parents, and a child that sees a mother breastfeeding may imitate her. So I have to assume that the Fox blonde chick did not breast feed.
If you want to see the doll that caused the stir, here is a video.
Comments
Add Comment