SteelyKid was a little bit fussy yesterday, and would only be quiet when carried in the “airplane” position. There are a limited number of ways to pass the time when doing this, so I had the tv on, and while channel-surfing past MSNBC, caught something saying that Obama would be giving his first news conference. That sounded somewhat interesting, so I watched it.
The news conference itself was pretty unremarkable, but the immediate aftermath provided an excellent example of why the only tv news I watch is on Comedy Central. It’s not just the mind-boggling self-importance that Timothy Burke writes about— they actually manage to achieve negative information transfer, making people less informed through their commentary.
Yesterday’s demonstration of this had to do with the final question of the news conference, helpfully transcribed by CNN:
Question: Mr. President-elect, do you still intend to seek income tax increases for upper-income Americans? And if so, should these Americans expect to pay higher taxes in 2009?
Obama: The — my tax plan represented a net tax cut. It provided for substantial middle-class tax cuts; 95 percent of working Americans would receive them.
It also provided for cuts in capital gains for small businesses, additional tax credits. All of it is designed for job growth.
My priority is going to be, how do we grow the economy? How do we create more jobs?
I think that the plan that we’ve put forward is the right one, but, obviously, over the next several weeks and months, we’re going to be continuing to take a look at the data and see what’s taking place in the economy as a whole.
But, understand, the goal of my plan is to provide tax relief to families that are struggling, but also to boost the capacity of the economy to grow from the bottom up.
It’s kind of a silly question, but I thought he dealt with it perfectly well.
The news conference ends, and they cut back to Chris Matthews and some woman whose name I don’t recall. Who, after giving a summary of the news conference that was almost as long as the news conference itself (which, you recall, just happened), proceed to talk about how “he didn’t really answer the question,” and how interesting it is that he appears to be walking back his campaign promise regarding taxes.
This is an example of what I mean. Anybody paying attention to Matthews and whoever would actually be less informed at the end of the day than if they just watched the press conference video, or read the transcript on the Internet.
I mean, in what way is that not an answer to the question? He re-frames the question about his tax plan to be more favorable, then says, “I think that the plan that we’ve put forward is the right one, but, obviously, over the next several weeks and months, we’re going to be continuing to take a look at the data and see what’s taking place in the economy as a whole.” That translates to “I’m going forward with the plan I proposed, unless something happens to make me think something else would be better.” That’s as direct an answer as you can expect, and it’s the right answer to give.
It’s not ducking the question, and it’s not waffling about the plan he campaigned on. And yet, Matthews and whoever were off on what promised to be a long discussion of the meaning of something that didn’t actually happen.
I don’t know how long that ended up lasting, or what they said, though. I changed the channel to, if I recall correctly, a re-run of an 80’s cop show. Because I knew I could count on that not to make me any dumber than I already am.
They’ve been pulling the “he didn’t answer the question” and “he lacks substance” crap on Obama from Day One, no reason to change course now. It’s maddening, isn’t it? Of COURSE he answered the question. Either the anchors can’t process information properly, or they are willfully pretending not to understand. Neither option is flattering to them. 🙂
John McCain’s campaign, by contrast, WAS “a re-run of an 80’s cop show.” Only it turned into a sit com, as two teams of cops competed to produce the new Police Chief.
The grizzled veteran cop, still having flashbacks from being tortured by bad guys three decades ago, is paired with a sexy hillbilly female police officer. The unlikely team of mavericks cruises the country in their squad car, and bond, while looking for a shoot-out with bad guys, any bad guys, anywhere. Or a moose, whichever comes first.
For comic relief, the gung-ho crusty vet does his Frankenstein’s monster walk, and forgets where he is, while the lady cop talks in tongues, tries to get her ex-brother-in-law fired from the squad, arrests a homeless guy with along beard for looking like Charles Darwin, and insists that she could see Russia from her back yard.
Hilarity ensues when the lady cop uses a stolen credit card for a $150,000 shoping spreee, which ends with putting lipstick on a pig.
The ordinary cops in the precinct are amused but offended by the geezer-gal team, whom they never really accepted as individuals in the first place, and the skinny young African American rookie becomes the new Police Chief.
Cut to commercial…
California Governor Schwarzenegger wants to impose an additional 1.5% sales tax – bringing LA County above 10% total – to pay for obscenely wasteful social spending policies. If you think things are expensive now, just wait to see what they cost when they are free.
Obama is certainly not a socialist if he plans to steal from the wealthy and give to the middle class. Kill the EPA, HHS, and the Department of Education. Let GM die as a warning to others. End the madness.
I know Uncle Al is just a troll, but really, 10% sales tax is a lot, but it’s not the worst thing ever. VAT in Europe is about 15%, and most provinces in Canada pay around 13%. Of course, you’ll probably write us off as socialist countries.
More urgently (for me as a secondary school teacher in California) California Governor Schwarzenegger has proposed slashing the state education budget by $2.5 x 10^9.
He is under pressure to rescind his executive order that ALL 8th graders pass Algebra 1.
Well intentioned, algebroidally, and properly attuned to what America needs to be globally competitive in Math, Science, Engineering, Technology. BUT there seems to be no way for California (1/5 of USA population) to get there from where it is today (50% real dropout rate in high school, heavily covered up by fraud and social promotion of under-skilled students into community colleges for years of remedial courses). The resources don’t exist.
Or, on the other hand, when I get my Full Time California Teaching Credential in Mathematics in Spring 2009 (insane that I need certification given my ex-professorships in Math and Science, but that was George W. Bush’s administration’s No Child Left Behind) — then let’s see how local schools bid for my services. I see a pay raise on the horizon. Of course, I might be paid in scrip or Monopoly money or IOUs.
This is why I do not own a TV set: it saves me the trouble of killing it when self-important blowhards like Chris Matthews try to tell me that black is white and up is down. (And I hear that Matthews is far from the worst offender in that regard.) Nowadays the really useful stuff–the best Stewart or Colbert segments, the good stuff from Saturday Night Live, etc.–is available over the Internet anyway.
Yes, Chris Mathews is telling us “OMG It’s SNOWING!!eleventy!” again (did anyone else catch Jon Stewart talking about how he experiences reality?)
Also, I feel so dumb for not having figured it out before… have we ever seen “Uncle Al” and “Ron Paul” in the same place at the same time? I didn’t think so!
Jonathan Vos Post- I think the 80s cop-show write up is dead on. Nicely done.
Thank you, Becca.
To the extent that I have been since the early 1970s (!) a “scab” who gives much of his work away free on the internet, thus hypothetically driving down salaries of professional Science Fiction authors, playwrights, screenwriters, Mathematicians, Physicists, Biologists, Economists, and teachers, it is genuinely a pleasure to get back feedback in the blogosphere, even when negative. Your positive comment gave me my biggest smile of the day so far.
I see nothing wrong with commenting that Obama did not answer the question asked. Even though I supported Obama, I still don’t like the tactic of dodging questions. It reeks of politics at a time when Americans want straight answers.
I mean, come on, it was Obama’s press conference. He could have taken as long as he wanted to answer the question. Would it have been that much trouble to add, “Yes, my tax plan does still call for marginal tax rate increases for the top 5% of wage earners, and no, my tax plan will not be implemented immediately so these people will probably not pay more in income taxes in 2009.”
See, was that so hard? He could have then blathered on and on about whatever he wanted to while still being direct with the reporter and American people. Sure, some people would harp on the tax increase part of his statement, but he should have to explain and defend his plan. Remember “straight talk” is why the media loved John McCain back in 2000, and I think Obama could have won some brownie points for starting his administration off with something besides politics as usual.
I see nothing wrong with commenting that Obama did not answer the question asked. Even though I supported Obama, I still don’t like the tactic of dodging questions. It reeks of politics at a time when Americans want straight answers.
That wasn’t a dodge.
The question was slanted, framing his plan as primarily a tax increase, and he made the necessary correction to the frame before answering the question.
There wasn’t any dodging involved. A dodge is a refusal to answer, or a complete non-answer. He gave a perfectly clear answer to the question: “Yes, I’m going ahead with the plan I campaigned on, unless something happens to make me think a different plan would be better.”