We all know what actual fake news looks like. There is a picture of a fish with two heads. There is one showing three people abducted by aliens who spoke fluent French.
But there is another kind of news - one that we are seeing more of - biased reporting containing omissions of facts or of thoughtful follow up questioning.
Ever since Donald Trump became the likely candidate, the mainstream media has been against him, wishing him to lose the general election and once elected, our dedicated journalists did everything to ensure a failed presidency, even if it hurts the country.
They should have worn t-shirts that read "We hate Trump and want him to fail." Maybe they didn't have to.
The media jumps on any report that could hurt the presidency even if it includes taking comments out of context, relying on unnamed sources or leaving out part of the story. Here are some recent examples.
When the Congress voted to end individual insurance mandate, so those who did not want to pay for the insurance and its premiums would not have to. There might be 1.5 million people who want out having felt forced to sign on. It is constantly reported that it would cost the loss for 15 million people because that's over a 10 year period - 1.5 million people opting out each year times 10, something that gets left out.
Then there are the complaints that if healthy people can opt out, it will raise premiums for everyone else. They fail to mention that premiums have been going up for years now and private insurers have dropped out leaving one in three people with only one company to choose from. That company knew it had a captive audience and raised its prices.
The media has not challenged the assumption that the system needs healthy people to pay for services they will never need, like men getting coverage for maternity care or female birth control. They have not come up with a solution for this issue, here's one: After making signups voluntary, let the private insurers reject any applicant for medical reasons. These people, as well as those in 19 states that refused to expand medicaid, would be eligible to the "public option." It would be a federal program and would have a share of cost depending on income. Let private and public insurers offer scaled down coverage including just the basics like hospital stays, office visits including outpatient clinics, medical supplies like prescription drugs or medical equipment, and lab tests. Private insurers would return to the market and compete for the healthy applicants, who would come back voluntarily if the price is right. Insurers might be motivated to eliminate deductibles. Then every American who wants affordable health coverage will have it.
The new tax plan while flawed is getting unfair, dishonest treatment in the media. The media forgets to mention that 47% of American households pay no taxes with many receiving money rather than sending it. Two out of three taxpayers already use the standardized deduction. They don't stress that the standard deduction has been doubled as has the dependent child credit. So instead of showing that family of four would get $28,000 off their taxable income -
24,000 standard deduction plus a $4,000 refundable tax credit. -they lament that those using the standard deduction and tax credit would lose some benefit that is worth much less. The taxpayer using the standard deduction will pay less in taxes.
They hypothesize that charitable donations will be hurt because people who used to itemize now would use the standard deduction. They again fail to mention that families with less income and a lower standard deduction pay most of the $600 billion spent on charities and almost that much in free volunteer efforts, like helping flood victims or handing out food for the homeless. The huge family donations are from people who itemize, the top 10%. The reporting also fails to remind us what happened when developed countries dropped deductions for charities - the level of donations dropped slightly but returned to its former level after a year. Most people donate to help those in need, not to cut their taxes a little.
The media stresses that the apparent tax cuts for those who standardize would be for only 10 years while the corporate tax breaks are permanent. They forgot to remind us that "temporary" means that it needs to be renewed or even increased in 2028. "Permanent" means that the law will be in effect until the Congress changes it.
We are told that this a tax code that favors the rich by showing that the corporate tax rate was lowered from 35% to 21%. We are not told that corporations don't really pay taxes, the stockholders and customers do. I also did not hear that the rich will lose some of their big deductions like state and local taxes and mortgage interest deductions on interest that had been $1,000,000 for mortgages down to $750,000. These are two big former deductions for the well-to-do. The media emphasizes instead that the top marginal tax rate has gone from 39.6% to 37% but with the loss of two of their biggest deductions, they will probably end up paying more.
We have heard the the President has backed out of the climate accord signed by up to by 190 countries to reduce pollution causing a change in climate. What we are never told is that countries who continue to pollute above the agreed upon levels would pay billions for the extra to an international body that would redistribute the money to poorer nations. This could cost American taxpayers billions of dollars each year.
When there was a riot in Charlottesville, the President said that all sides were to blame. Everyone made believe they were shocked. He should have condemned the White Supremacists and no one else. We're not reminded that those protesting this group were involved and sometimes instigated the battle. We are not also reminded that the police were not ordered to step in for an hour. So all three groups had a hand in this. Months later there was another march in Phoenix. The police were there and set up barricades to keep protesters from getting near the marchers. There was no incident there.
A few years ago a young high school player was killed by a a man who was working as a volunteer for neighborhood watch. From the first day the police and the media knew it was self defense, that the young man was trying to kill the volunteer but we were not told. We were shown a picture of this "victim" that looked like it was taken when the 16 year old was 13 and they showed a picture of the volunteer which looked nothing like him making him look like a Mexican drug dealer in prison garb. The media later acknowledged their mistake but kept using the pictures. The jury and the U.S. Attorney General also found that it was self defense. We were never reminded of this. The same in Ferguson where a young, 6'5" former high school football player was killed by police. Local residents rioted for four months not realizing that this also self defense. A three monthlong Grand Jury investigation proved that was self defense as did the U.S. Attorney General.
These are just a few of the media's misinformation reports done to keep being sensationalist, superficial and subjective. It is clear or should be that the mainstream media misreports or omits information that would make the news less sensationalist, superficial and subjective (read biased). Maybe that's why few Americans trust the mainstream media and why bloggers exist to correct the poor reporting.
But there is another kind of news - one that we are seeing more of - biased reporting containing omissions of facts or of thoughtful follow up questioning.
Ever since Donald Trump became the likely candidate, the mainstream media has been against him, wishing him to lose the general election and once elected, our dedicated journalists did everything to ensure a failed presidency, even if it hurts the country.
They should have worn t-shirts that read "We hate Trump and want him to fail." Maybe they didn't have to.
The media jumps on any report that could hurt the presidency even if it includes taking comments out of context, relying on unnamed sources or leaving out part of the story. Here are some recent examples.
When the Congress voted to end individual insurance mandate, so those who did not want to pay for the insurance and its premiums would not have to. There might be 1.5 million people who want out having felt forced to sign on. It is constantly reported that it would cost the loss for 15 million people because that's over a 10 year period - 1.5 million people opting out each year times 10, something that gets left out.
Then there are the complaints that if healthy people can opt out, it will raise premiums for everyone else. They fail to mention that premiums have been going up for years now and private insurers have dropped out leaving one in three people with only one company to choose from. That company knew it had a captive audience and raised its prices.
The media has not challenged the assumption that the system needs healthy people to pay for services they will never need, like men getting coverage for maternity care or female birth control. They have not come up with a solution for this issue, here's one: After making signups voluntary, let the private insurers reject any applicant for medical reasons. These people, as well as those in 19 states that refused to expand medicaid, would be eligible to the "public option." It would be a federal program and would have a share of cost depending on income. Let private and public insurers offer scaled down coverage including just the basics like hospital stays, office visits including outpatient clinics, medical supplies like prescription drugs or medical equipment, and lab tests. Private insurers would return to the market and compete for the healthy applicants, who would come back voluntarily if the price is right. Insurers might be motivated to eliminate deductibles. Then every American who wants affordable health coverage will have it.
The new tax plan while flawed is getting unfair, dishonest treatment in the media. The media forgets to mention that 47% of American households pay no taxes with many receiving money rather than sending it. Two out of three taxpayers already use the standardized deduction. They don't stress that the standard deduction has been doubled as has the dependent child credit. So instead of showing that family of four would get $28,000 off their taxable income -
24,000 standard deduction plus a $4,000 refundable tax credit. -they lament that those using the standard deduction and tax credit would lose some benefit that is worth much less. The taxpayer using the standard deduction will pay less in taxes.
They hypothesize that charitable donations will be hurt because people who used to itemize now would use the standard deduction. They again fail to mention that families with less income and a lower standard deduction pay most of the $600 billion spent on charities and almost that much in free volunteer efforts, like helping flood victims or handing out food for the homeless. The huge family donations are from people who itemize, the top 10%. The reporting also fails to remind us what happened when developed countries dropped deductions for charities - the level of donations dropped slightly but returned to its former level after a year. Most people donate to help those in need, not to cut their taxes a little.
The media stresses that the apparent tax cuts for those who standardize would be for only 10 years while the corporate tax breaks are permanent. They forgot to remind us that "temporary" means that it needs to be renewed or even increased in 2028. "Permanent" means that the law will be in effect until the Congress changes it.
We are told that this a tax code that favors the rich by showing that the corporate tax rate was lowered from 35% to 21%. We are not told that corporations don't really pay taxes, the stockholders and customers do. I also did not hear that the rich will lose some of their big deductions like state and local taxes and mortgage interest deductions on interest that had been $1,000,000 for mortgages down to $750,000. These are two big former deductions for the well-to-do. The media emphasizes instead that the top marginal tax rate has gone from 39.6% to 37% but with the loss of two of their biggest deductions, they will probably end up paying more.
We have heard the the President has backed out of the climate accord signed by up to by 190 countries to reduce pollution causing a change in climate. What we are never told is that countries who continue to pollute above the agreed upon levels would pay billions for the extra to an international body that would redistribute the money to poorer nations. This could cost American taxpayers billions of dollars each year.
When there was a riot in Charlottesville, the President said that all sides were to blame. Everyone made believe they were shocked. He should have condemned the White Supremacists and no one else. We're not reminded that those protesting this group were involved and sometimes instigated the battle. We are not also reminded that the police were not ordered to step in for an hour. So all three groups had a hand in this. Months later there was another march in Phoenix. The police were there and set up barricades to keep protesters from getting near the marchers. There was no incident there.
A few years ago a young high school player was killed by a a man who was working as a volunteer for neighborhood watch. From the first day the police and the media knew it was self defense, that the young man was trying to kill the volunteer but we were not told. We were shown a picture of this "victim" that looked like it was taken when the 16 year old was 13 and they showed a picture of the volunteer which looked nothing like him making him look like a Mexican drug dealer in prison garb. The media later acknowledged their mistake but kept using the pictures. The jury and the U.S. Attorney General also found that it was self defense. We were never reminded of this. The same in Ferguson where a young, 6'5" former high school football player was killed by police. Local residents rioted for four months not realizing that this also self defense. A three monthlong Grand Jury investigation proved that was self defense as did the U.S. Attorney General.
These are just a few of the media's misinformation reports done to keep being sensationalist, superficial and subjective. It is clear or should be that the mainstream media misreports or omits information that would make the news less sensationalist, superficial and subjective (read biased). Maybe that's why few Americans trust the mainstream media and why bloggers exist to correct the poor reporting.
