Katie Couric gave viewers whiplash over the $100 million nonsense
April 22, 2009 2:22 pm ET by Eric Boehlert
We gotta say the $100 million 'story' gave us a headache right from the get-go.
To recap: in a largely symbolic move aimed at reducing administrative costs, Obama urged his cabinet members to cut $100 million from their budgets. The GOP immediately pounced, mocking the White House's plan by stressing it would do little or nothing to reduce the federal deficit. (Hint: it wasn't designed to.) The press quickly piled on.
Laying on the attitude quite thick, the WH press corps mocked the WH for trying so save a measly $100 million by pretending that the symbolic effort to reduce administrative costs somehow represented Obama's entire initiative to save money. It didn't, but the press, egged on by the GOP, played dumb.
Watching the CBS Evening News, Andrew Tyndall made a great point about how Katie Couric's broadcast couldn't decide, within the span of just a few minutes and back-to-back Beltway reports, whether $100 million was a laughably small number (i.e. the Obama initiative), or whether it was a scandalously large amount of money.
The Evening News last night dutifully aired the Obama $100 million story, complete with the angle that, compared to the entire federal budget, it was a comically small amount of money to try to save. But then, in the very next report, CBS touted as a big deal news that Rep. Jack Murth (D-PA) supports $31 million worth of earmarks for ten companies that supported him at election time. Suddenly, that minuscule fraction of the total federal budget was breaking news.
Wrote Tyndall:
So come on Couric, where does CBS Evening News stand? Is $100m saved so small that it demands a story? Or is $31m appropriated so large that it demands another?
Actually, Bob Somersby doesn't say anything about Katie Couric saying that $100 million is nothing but $30 million is a lot of money.
Get back to us when you have a point.
Boehlert says that the media double standard is ridiculous and that can't be argued. The media was nowhere for McCain's earmark pledge or Jindal's stimulus waste.
Anyway, MMFA was not commenting on whether or not the 100 million is a large amount, or not. What they're commenting on is the coverage given to this story, and the 2 faced coverage media sources give for this, and then as given in the example above, about Murtha.
Take also for example in the big scandal of the 150 million in bonus money that was going to be given out by AIG, that too is also a very small amount of money compared to the total amount that they've received in rescue funds, but that didn't stop most of us from being mad about it. Why? It was symbolic. Same as this 100 million. It's a small chip in a large glacier, but it's a start isn't it?
Well, Obama's plan is laughable stunt. $100 million is less than thirty-six thousandth of this year’s federal budget. It deserves derision, though maybe not in the heavy handed way done by some press commentators.
Explain to me why you feel that way? Seems to me that people like you deride $100M only because the conservative media is doing so.
Bush had nearly the same deficits last year in his budget and did NOT ask for across-the-board $100M cuts.
If he HAD asked for such cuts, conservatives would have p'd their pants with joy.
But Obama does it, and it is derided. Is this because it goes against the grain: you know, all Dems TAX & SPEND, right?
Well, dude, the spending in the budget is where the $1.3T deficit comes from. The $100M cut is not intended to lower that.
Obama has asked each dept to be wiser in their expenditures.
You find that funny and worth of looking down through your nose, eh?
Good for you. You must be proud.
It wasn't done to put a significant dent in the budget deficit though.
If it had been done for that reason, you'd have a point. As it is, your only point is on the top of your head.
His plan wasn't a stunt though. The vitriol you criticize is imaginary. You, on the other hand, are guilty of using vitriol in calling what Obama did a stunt.
To recap: in a largely symbolic move aimed at reducing administrative costs, Obama urged his cabinet members to cut $100 million from their budgets. The GOP immediately pounced, mocking the White House's plan by stressing it would do little or nothing to reduce the federal deficit. (Hint: it wasn't designed to.) The press quickly piled on.
I'm kind of surprised at the vitriol I'm getting here. I generally like Media Matters and especially the work Eric Boehlert does here, I just think he is wrong as to this particular press incident. I thought that Boehlert, who has expressed admiration for Somerby in the past, might like to respond to the issues Somerby raised, though he hasn't, which I think is unfortunate.
I think the press makes too big of a deal out of "pork barrel spending" and "ear marks;" in general they are a distraction from more serious discussions about budget priorities and tax policies. However, I think that Couric has a point about Murtha's ear marks. If Obama is willing to make a big deal about $100 million dollars, then it makes Murtha's $30 million seem important, too.
Finally, just to be very clear, I am not a conservative, but a left-wing social democrat, see <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy">here</a> for an explanation. In general, the democratic party is not far enough to the left for my taste.
I think if they can find 100 million, they can find lots more to take out. And that's the direction he's looking at.
Sometimes they critique the media seriously. Sometimes they critique the media lightheartedly. But they always critique the media.
Um... STEEVE...
"They don't debate the pros and cons of different proposals on the table, or analyze the Democratic message."
That's because MMfA's stated reason for existing is for exposing conservative or Republican media bias...
Perhaps MMfA could do as you ask... but that is not what their intended existence is about...
Here is the LINK to MMfA's stated goal... just in case you were wondering... or simply forgot
When will you people learn? You gain no credibility when you say stuff like "I generally like Media Matters and Boehlert, but in this case they're wrong."
And I told you that Obama wasn't making a big deal of it, and wasn't trying to have an impact on the budget deficit with this spending cut half an hour before you typed that Obama was making a big deal about it.
So, again, the only point you have is on the top of your head. You've been caught and caught again and caught again. You have not received vitrol. You've received smackdown for your ludicrous statements and outlandish conclusions and derailing comments. There's a big difference between getting a smackdown and receiving vitriol. If you had something besides a point at the top of your head, you might know this. This isn't vitriol, it's justifiable ridicule.
Do I always smack someone down when they say that they have been subject to vitriol when the truth is that they were smacked down for the nonsense that was entered on this site from their mind through their fingertips? Yes.
It wasn't a stunt. This is a fact. You can have your own opinions, but not your own facts. It wasn't done to deceive anyone, or lower the deficit, or pretend to lower the deficit. It wasn't a stunt.