The AP concocts the cost of Obama's inauguration
January 18, 2009 9:31 am ET by Eric Boehlert
It's hard to find journalism more shoddy than this, courtesy of the AP's Matt Apuzzo [emphasis added]:
The price tag for President-elect Barack Obama's inauguration gala is expected to break records, with some estimates reaching as high as $150 million. Despite the bleak economy, however, Democrats who called on President George W. Bush to be frugal four years ago are issuing no such demands now that an inaugural weekend of rock concerts and star-studded parties has begun.
Where does that jaw-dropping number of $150 million come from? The AP never says. It doesn't quote anybody, it doesn't point to any facts. There's no nothing. The AP builds an entire story around how much Obama's inauguration might cost (why stop at $150 million?), yet never substantiates the what-if estimates.
As we said, journalism doesn't get much worse than that.
For an ind-depth look at the phony controversy over Obama's possible inauguration costs, click here.
UPDATE: Unlike AP, ABC News at least tries to substantiate the huge figure the media have been tossing around in terms of the cost of Obama's inauguration. (Hint: Most of it is for security.) But even with ABC's actual reporting, the article still falls short. (Hint: No context.)
If I called my local newspaper, say "The inauguration will cost $900 million", then immediately hang up, $900 million is what you'll see in the next AP story.
Same this morning on MSNBC; from AP's mouth the Jack Welch's boys' and girls' heads.
Yes, there's a lot of cost for those workers, but it's not costs incurred by the inauguration, but consumed by it.
Eric fine catch on the manipulation of estimates to push an agenda. The media certainly has a track record of inconsistant reporting of inauguration expendatures. Take for instance this 2005 report estimating Bush to be spending 70 million.
http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2005/01/20/media_on_inauguration
A full 100 million less than the estimated Obama expendatures. But who really knows the motives of certain slanting of reports. You never really can believe what the media tells you anyway. There is always an agenda to be followed. Just to clarify though, is 170 million ok? It would be silly to think that such a historic event could be correctly produced for only 70 million.