Aw, shucks.
Sarah Palin is “just a former governor and current housewife from Alaska, but even humble folks like (her) can read the newspaper.”
Reading’s one thing. Comprehending’s another.
Palin makes the unfortunate mistake of slapping back at Wall Street Journal reporter Sudeep Reddy for calling her out for what he called “hyperbole” in a speech Palin made to the Specialty Tools and Fasteners Distributors Association convention in Phoenix.
She gets it wrong again. It was indeed hyperbole.
I noticed her remarks separately and also called out Palin in Audit Notes this evening for the inflation error. I was amused by the whole Sarah Palin Takes on QE2 thing just on its face, but also noted that she got a couple of facts wrong in her post (including another one about energy independence). She said this, which Reddy also picked up on:
All this pump priming will come at a serious price. And I mean that literally: everyone who ever goes out shopping for groceries knows that prices have risen significantly over the past year or so. Pump priming would push them even higher.
That’s just not the case. As I pointed out yesterday, food prices have risen just 1.4 percent in the last year, which is about as insignificant as it gets. Reddy put it even better:
Grocery prices haven’t risen all that significantly, in fact. The consumer price index’s measure of food and beverages for the first nine months of this year showed average annual inflation of less than 0.6%, the slowest pace on record (since the Labor Department started keeping this measure in 1968). Even if you pick a single snapshot — say, September’s year-over-year increase in prices — that was just 1.4%, far better than the 6% annual increase for food prices recorded in September 2008.
Palin (or whoever’s writing her stuff) tries to pull an “aha!” moment on the ol’ “lamestream media,” but just makes herself look worse.
Mr. Reddy takes aim at this. He writes: “Grocery prices haven’t risen all that significantly, in fact.” Really? That’s odd, because just last Thursday, November 4, I read an article in Mr. Reddy’s own Wall Street Journal titled “Food Sellers Grit Teeth, Raise Prices: Packagers and Supermarkets Pressured to Pass Along Rising Costs, Even as Consumers Pinch Pennies.”
The article noted that “an inflationary tide is beginning to ripple through America’s supermarkets and restaurants…Prices of staples including milk, beef, coffee, cocoa and sugar have risen sharply in recent months.”
What that WSJ article said—which you can in fact discern even from her selective quoting—is that food prices may be beginning to rise. And when I say selective quoting, I mean selective quoting. Note where the ellipsis in her WSJ quote there. That’s from the lede of the story, which says, in full:
An inflationary tide is beginning to ripple through America’s supermarkets and restaurants,threatening to end the tamest year of food pricing in nearly two decades.
So, Palin is hammering the Journal and Reddy for pointing out that she’s flat wrong about grocery prices going up significantly in the past year. What does she do? She quotes a separate Journal story that confirms what Reddy is saying—and cuts out that part with three dots. Nice!
Palin has a journalism degree, so I’m guessing she knows what an ethical no-no it is to misquote somebody like that. It ought to be awfully hard for her to get on her pedestal and condemn the media when she can’t even quote somebody honestly. How about to make it up to Reddy, Palin lets a real reporter like him fly out to Wasilla to interview her for once instead of going to her house folks at Fox News?
Maybe they can talk about the possible wave of food inflation coming our way.
I think the obvious answer you're looking for is journalism as a major to develop your ability to convey your critique/review in written word versus by speaking.
http://www.articlesbase.com/health-articles/force-factor-reviews-do-force-factor-supplements-work-2369634.html
#1 Posted by juanitahousley, CJR on Mon 8 Nov 2010 at 11:14 PM
She's an idiot and in her mind, never ever wrong! If she made a mistake, she would never admit it. Narcissistic personality disorder.
#2 Posted by AlaskanJim, CJR on Tue 9 Nov 2010 at 12:09 AM
Spot on, AlaskanJim. Palin is a pathological liar, gas lights people, never accepts blame for her mistakes. It would appear she has most of the hallmark symptoms of a sociopath. Read, "the sociopath next door: The Ruthless Versus the Rest of Us," by Martha Stoudt, Ph.D., Crown Publishing, 2005.
#3 Posted by carrieoki, CJR on Tue 9 Nov 2010 at 02:59 AM
These posts would have more impact if you ever - once - held a Democrat to a similar standard. It may well be that the "inflationary tide" is a result of QE2, in which case she's quite correct.
Unfortunately, mocking Palin and jumping to Obama's defense is exactly what one would expect of a Soros-funded CJR. And in that instance Palin as media critic is also spot on.
#4 Posted by JLD, CJR on Tue 9 Nov 2010 at 04:04 AM
Well, I can't think of any reason why Sarah Palin's opinion on economic matters are anything but pathetic and incredible. It's pretty obvious that she and her acolytes have never made it through Econ 101. That fact alone pretty much discredits any opinion they may have about economic matters. That goes for the entire GOP leadership as well. I'm pretty sure that not a single one of them have passed a basic class in economics.
I'm a little conflicted about you mainstream journos doing this, @Ryan. I know it's kind of fun to pick apart her preposterous postings, and only her true believers take that kind of stuff seriously. And I get that she's a public figure. Surely you get that she's playing games with you and that it benefits her more than it benefits either journalism or the news consumer.
If Politico and WSJ didn't rush to production, with all the heavy breathing, every word that this deeply disturbed woman posts and twitters, she would today be comfortably residing in obscurity, a failed vice presidential candidate on the order of Geraldine Ferraro and James Stockdale.
This woman is playing you mainstream guys like a fine fiddle. I get that journos pretty much *have* to cover someone that their competitors cover. It used to be that not dealing with the press was a ticket to obscurity. It used to be that a person proudly displaying one's profound ignorance on a daily basis wouldn't last very long in the public square.
What say, @Ryan? You've taken the opportunity to write a decent piece on the economics and wrong-headedness of the facebook post, and to point out a decent bit of journalism over at WSJ. That's your job and it was a good and useful piece. But. What price is journalism paying by treating her seriously enough to debunk what she says?
#5 Posted by James, CJR on Tue 9 Nov 2010 at 07:09 AM
#6 Posted by Aaron, CJR on Tue 9 Nov 2010 at 08:35 AM
JLD,
It would be hard for the "inflationary tide" to be a result of QE2. For one thing, QE2 was announced last week. For another, inflation is running below 1 percent.
James,
She's one of the leading contenders for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination. Fact-checking her is quite a bit different than just writing "Sarah Palin said X on Facebook."
#7 Posted by Ryan Chittum, CJR on Tue 9 Nov 2010 at 09:13 AM
@Ryan,
I get that. I really do. CJR has 4 pieces on the front page on Palin right now. One would think that CJR was promoting her candidacy for all the ink she gets, here and on Politico and on WSJ.
Would she even be a leading candidate if not for your and your colleagues' illustrious work? This woman is James Stockdale with lipstick. She is playing to the less-than-average-intelligence audience and has been a smashing success in that respect.
Mind you, @Ryan, I'm not trying to pick on you. As I said, I get that it's your job. It's not an individual journo thing. It's a problem with the political pack mentality. The political pack didn't run after every word that James Stockdale uttered after his failed candidacy, but are finding it extremely profitable to trot along, like obedient puppy dogs, after this woman.
I'm just asking, what is this doing to your profession in the long run? Will professional journalism recover its value to the American public after this?
#8 Posted by James, CJR on Tue 9 Nov 2010 at 09:29 AM
You nailed it, James. For the sake of ratings or SEO nubmers or whatever, the media keep giving outrageous candidates too much attention. Latest example, Palin wannabe O'Donnell is still all over the place. WHY?! Sadly, in today's world, any attention confers credibility and these type of folks are getting way too much of both.
#9 Posted by Kay, CJR on Tue 9 Nov 2010 at 09:38 AM
I don't trust the CPI numbers. All I know is I've been paying increasingly more for milk and other groceries for a long time now.
Moreover, think of what inflation and possibly higher interest rates will do when we've got such a horrible housing market still. Foreclosures will only get worse.
It seems like no matter how much the U.S. borrows, no matter how much money we print up out of thin air, the "smart people" will always tell us it doesn't matter and it doesn't affect our lives negatively. No worries -- as we sail off a cliff.
Meanwhile, Sarah Palin writes a Facebook note and the CJR feels the need to comment.
Please do let us know your opinion on Mitt Romney's QE2 views.
#10 Posted by Nicole, CJR on Tue 9 Nov 2010 at 10:28 AM
James and Kay,
It has long been a staple of journalism to check what candidates say against the record. Failing to do so would prompt criticism that journalists did not do their job.
That includes Christine O'Donnell who got about 40 percent of the Delaware vote last week and whose past records suggests her runs for office are not over.
JDL, so show some specific examples of non-GOP politicians who dishonestly edit quotes, as Palin clearly did, to make points and THEN ask Chittum to examine them. They may well exist and if so they should be critiqued and exposed with the same vigor Chittum applies to the rest of his excellent work.
But your ad hominem attack (made while hiding behind a nom d'Internet) lacks any facts which can be pursued, thus contributing nothing useful to the task of reviewing the performance of journalists.
#11 Posted by David Cay Johnston, CJR on Tue 9 Nov 2010 at 10:33 AM
Let me sum up JLD's point.
If a source is "partisan" what they say must be questiond. We judge "facts" mainly on who is saying them and how they relate to people we support, and not on their own merits.
So if someone we agree with claims something, and distorts quotations to "prove" it, they might be right. If a source we think is to liberal or funded by George Soros says something, their "facts" are probably wrong. Even the Wall Street Journal is liberal or at least against Palin and can't be trusted even to quote government economic data.
There is no reality, only opinion, and if it is in anyway against Palin it must be wrong. Or to put it another way, reality has a liberal bias and should not be trusted.
Palin 2012!!!!!
#12 Posted by jt10000, CJR on Tue 9 Nov 2010 at 10:35 AM
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that Ryan is a liberal guy... He's kind of an A$$ too.
#13 Posted by Monty, CJR on Tue 9 Nov 2010 at 11:06 AM
Ryan Chittum:
I am willing to wager $10,000 that at the time of Palin's speech, food prices in the U.S. had already started to increase due to inflation, and that they will continue to rise.
That is, I am willing to bet $10,000 that Palin was correct in her economic commentary on this matter. Are you confident enough that she is wrong to bet against me?
Please respond here in the comments section. If you're brave enough to back up your verbal sniping with something substantial then we can work out the details and see who turns out to be right.
#14 Posted by Jay, CJR on Tue 9 Nov 2010 at 11:12 AM
@Mr. Johnston and @Ryan,
I don't disagree with you at all, but you ignore my basic question: Would she even be a presidential candidate if not for all of the attention that mainstream journalism lavishes on her?
There is a reason why I compared her to James Stockdale. Remember Vice Adm. Stockdale's disastrous debate? Palin had a debut on the national stage every bit as disastrous as Stockdale's. Yet here we are, two years later, talking about her as a presidential candidate.
This is a woman, after all, who quit her governor job less than half way through her term. In what world is she any kind of credible presidential candidate? You've been in journalism a long time. Has there ever, ever been a less credible candidate for national office?
I mean, do you have to fact-check every crackpot that posts on Facebook? I think the answer is no. I think I'm asking a legitimate question here.
#15 Posted by James, CJR on Tue 9 Nov 2010 at 11:46 AM
@Jay - Wow! Betting the author $10,000! And anonymously! Online! You - sir - are a brave man! Nothing can prove that someone is wrong more than an anonymous bet on the interwebs!
Let's all stand back in awe of the rock-solid logic, intellect, and - dare I say - extraordinary gumption and patriotism here on display by "Jay." These are truly magnificent times!
#16 Posted by Mark, CJR on Tue 9 Nov 2010 at 11:51 AM
Am I the only one who reads the article and thinks it confirms what Palin said?
_ Palin said "...prices have risen significantly over the past year or so." he calls her on it, so she cites a Reddy article in which he writes _ now wait for it _ "Prices of staples including milk, beef, coffee, cocoa and sugar have risen sharply in recent months.”
How on earth does the ellipsis make his case? It seems like Reddy just shouted from a mountain "She's wrong AND A WITCH, or something! Wait ... nevermind."
Really, I'm the first to admit Palin isn't bright and/or qualified for much in the way of political office. But you're helping her cause, and giving her backers fuel, when you trot out seriously less-than-clear `evidence' that she's blowing smoke. next time you say she's blowing smoke, I'll shrug because I'm pretty sure you're the one doing it now.
Can we have a do-over for that sanity rally thing? Without media, comedians or pundits? This is all getting ridiculous.
#17 Posted by Huh, CJR on Tue 9 Nov 2010 at 12:23 PM
I would love to know where you shop. Here in DC the prices of all food goods are up. The only thin that might be the same or lower is milk.
#18 Posted by Joe Flowers, CJR on Tue 9 Nov 2010 at 12:39 PM
Huh. The WHOLE POINT of this discussion is that prices of staples are rising sharply for supermarkets and restaurants and they are now considering passing these price rises on to consumers. They have held off doing so until now because of weak demand, unemployment, etc.
But no, you are not "the only one who reads the article and thinks it confirms what Palin said". There are clearly two of you who think that.
#19 Posted by Tom, CJR on Tue 9 Nov 2010 at 01:48 PM
Check your facts, Ryan. Sarah has a degree in communications. "Communications" degrees are what you see former-prop-48 athletes "majoring" in before they leave for the pros or get dismissed from the team following their redshirt junior year at West Virginia or Memphis. She had a "concentration" in journalism.
She's pretty dumb.
#20 Posted by Deklan Singh, CJR on Tue 9 Nov 2010 at 01:51 PM
Palin and others need to be called out by the press when they mis-state facts. The problem is, there are hundreds of thousands of people who read and believe what she says, then go vote based on that info. CJR and WSJ need to at least try to keep our national dialogue based on facts.
#21 Posted by Mike P, CJR on Tue 9 Nov 2010 at 02:00 PM
You people are morons of the highest order. Here's another WSJ piece that says:
"The former Alaskan Governor showed sound political and economic instincts by inveighing forcefully against the Federal Reserve's latest round of quantitative easing.
According to the prepared text of remarks that she released to National Review online, Mrs. Palin also exhibited a more sophisticated knowledge of monetary policy than any major Republican this side of Wisconsin Representative Paul Ryan."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703514904575602231815453378.html#articleTabs%3Darticle
It seems you folks are educated at a level far above your intelligence.
Oh, and she was spot on about that loser Reddy, who obviously doesn't even remember what he writes himself.
Your obvious bias makes you all look incredibly stupid.
#22 Posted by Gary, CJR on Tue 9 Nov 2010 at 02:07 PM
Inflation has not been a problem since the crisis and really for a few decades. Why? Because of frozen demand and low cost distributors like Walmart. Why is demand frozen? Because of stagnant, if not falling, wages and rising unemployment.
QE will inflate the price of imports to the degree that falling global demand doesn't deflate them. The price of local products will remain stable,* and the price of exported goods will drop. These are good things for local economies and businesses. People will buy cheaper American products as a result. Debts delineated in American dollars, will be devalued. I'm not a fan of Ben Bernanke and I think he has been a crutch to a corrupt banking system, but these are pro-growth policies. Stimulus isn't going to come from the federal government, banks are deleveraging and making their bucks off of Federal Reserve lent yen-carry trades using American dollars (often using close to 0% interest fed loans to buy 2% treasury bonds so they can pocket the difference in interest. Free money), nobody is coming to help.
Ben is trying to hold the line against deflation, but political gridlock and the broken economy are making things dangerously close to another collapse. Not to sound like a broken record but study 1990's Japan.
It's going to be a long decade.
*possibly reflecting a small increase to account for imported energy costs
#23 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Tue 9 Nov 2010 at 02:30 PM
Attention Deklan Singh: Having been a journalist for 30 years I most assuredly reject the notion that my communications degree is some sort of Prop 48. This particular post is another reason why I failed to renew my CJR subscription 15 years ago. More heat than light was cast.
#24 Posted by I object, CJR on Tue 9 Nov 2010 at 02:30 PM
Dear Object,
Some universities have quality communications programs. Others use it as a token degree. Sarah Palin attended many of the others.
As did this guy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ms3ruN-joxU
No offense was meant, I imagine.
#25 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Tue 9 Nov 2010 at 02:39 PM
@ Gary,
The piece you cite is in the OPINION section. As the late Senator Moynihan said:
"You’re entitled to your own opinions. You’re not entitled to your own facts."
James, journalists should cover people who are running whether its Stockdale or Palin or Kucinich so voters can decide. That Palin is making enough money to put her among the top hundredth of one percent of Americans in annual income suggests she has backers and supporters.
We would be better off as a nation if coverage was wider so we understood the broad array of views, not those seen as closer to mainstream.
#26 Posted by David Cay Johnston, CJR on Tue 9 Nov 2010 at 02:57 PM
Gary....Do you really think that Palin wrote that speech herself? She didn't. She just read it.
#27 Posted by kindness, CJR on Tue 9 Nov 2010 at 02:58 PM
My goodness...she said, "...everyone who ever goes out shopping for groceries knows that prices have risen significantly over the past year or so." This is demonstrably false. It's in the past; you can check it out (e.g, the 0.6% and 1.4% numbers listed above).
She is saying prices for food have already risen "significantly" (which is demonstrably false) and THEN saying she thinks they will continue to rise b/c of QE2 (which may be the case; it's only been a week, so who knows, but I don't think so).
Can I take up that $10,000 bet from Jay that she was "was correct in her economic commentary on this matter"? It will be like Back to the Future II, as I can bet on something that has already happened.
#28 Posted by Rob Pollard, CJR on Tue 9 Nov 2010 at 03:35 PM
@James
I don't know if I'd have liked Stockdale, or his policies, but the truth is he was the most decorated member of the United States Navy in history. He was put in a special prison in Vietnam, as POW, because he was so effective at rallying other prisoners. John McCain, for contrast, was not put in Vietnam's "Alcatraz."
Stockdale bowed out of public life after his debate, but Palin has not. Palin, former mayor of Podunk, Alaska, is not.
And, by the way, mostly Palin did fine in her VP debate. That she didn't bother answering the questions posed to her was not commented on by the moderator or Biden, so, effectively, she got away with it.
Comparing the two is pretty ****ing insulting.
#29 Posted by Joshua Simeon Narins, CJR on Tue 9 Nov 2010 at 03:39 PM
Chittum's apparently decided his words aren't worth standing behind, but if you want to enrich me on his behalf, Rob Pollard, I'll happily allow it.
If you're genuinely interested in staking $10,000 on your ability to prove your claim that - contrary to reality - U.S. food prices have not been increasing over the past year, as well as the implicit prediction that U.S. food prices will not continue to increase, we'll work something out.
#30 Posted by Jay, CJR on Tue 9 Nov 2010 at 05:08 PM
Tom, if supermarkets have "held off doing so until now" then Reddy was right, and Palin was right in paraphrasing him and quoting him directly. Injecting nuance about her credentials or my reading of the article is misdirection 101, so drop that charade. She said that Reddy wrote something. He did. Done and done. The rest of these arguments are selective parsing. If she's a dolt, then the left is a dolt 10x everytime she's right. Y'all need to quit pig wrestling and aim elsewhere and somehow convince palin, not the American public, that she doesn't matter. Otherwise she's pretty much going to do what she wants and continue to gain support until 2012.
You're welcome.
#31 Posted by Huh, CJR on Tue 9 Nov 2010 at 05:28 PM
No, Huh, just for the record and because I can't bear to see one more untruth pass for a truth because it's too much bother to correct it...
She said "everyone who ever goes out shopping for groceries knows that prices have risen significantly over the past year or so". The reality is that they have NOT risen over the past year or so for the people who go out shopping. They have stayed broadly the same because the supermarkets and the restaurants have not been passing the price rises on.
What I am doing is the opposite of "selective parsing". "Selective parsing" is exactly what Sarah Palin did in her speech. She then tried to defend this by selective misquoting.
I know this is not very important in itself but it's symptomatic of the all-out war on reality that's being waged these days. What someone actually wrote, the opinions of scientists, the opinions of economists, a man's religion... all these dry factual things are under daily assault from the right and there's a real risk people are going to start losing their grasp of reality pretty soon.
So, yes it's pig-wrestling. But she was wrong.
#32 Posted by Tom, CJR on Tue 9 Nov 2010 at 05:52 PM
Here Tom, I'll do the heavy lifting you selectively ignored.
Reddy: "Grocery prices haven’t risen all that significantly, in fact. The consumer price index’s measure of food and beverages for the first nine months of this year showed average annual inflation of less than 0.6%, the slowest pace on record."
So they risen. Not "all that significantly" aka " less than 0.6%" but Reddy himself wrote that they've risen. That Palin made great hay out of a small increase is her baggage. Claiming she lied is Reddy's baggage. Avoiding the facts easily available by scrolling up is yours.
#33 Posted by Huh, CJR on Tue 9 Nov 2010 at 06:28 PM
Man..
Sarah Palin really puts the fear of God into you "watchdogs", doesn't she?...
Funny thing, though...
Despite the plethora of Palin pieces here...
Not a single mention of the "professional journalists" at KTVA who were so recently sh*tcanned after conspiring to manufacture slime against the Tea Party candidate in Alaska...
You know, the guys Palin labeled "bastards"?....
Of course, the plain reality is that Palin is a politician, not a media critic... But you guys claim that you are... And yet...
Not a damned peep out of any of you about this preelection malfeasance among your colleagues.... Nor any mention of this most extreme form of "media criticism" from Gov. Palin.
But hey... Maybe you'll get to it after you finally get around to dealing with the JournList business...
Right?
Go figure...
#34 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Tue 9 Nov 2010 at 06:50 PM
Reddy accused her of hyperbole, not of lying. And hyperbole is probably the right word. "They have not risen significantly" becomes "they have risen significantly".
Dunno, somewhere between hyperbole and a lie. A lazy speechwriter only half reading a WSJ article is probably closest to the truth.
Thanks for doing the heavy lifting though, Duh.
#35 Posted by Tom, CJR on Tue 9 Nov 2010 at 06:55 PM
I think you may be propagating a myth. I have seen no evidence that Sarah Palin has a journalism degree or any other degree for that matter. Is there any proof? Remember she made her way through about 5 colleges in the four and half years. You think she was able to get a the University of Idaho to issue a degree after that? Do you think tThe University of Idaho will accept credits from four other colleges and issue a degree?
#36 Posted by Ronwel, CJR on Tue 9 Nov 2010 at 07:33 PM
@Mr. Johnston,
I get what you are saying, but I think you are being rather glib. Yes, journos should cover all candidates who are running for public office. Did they cover Dennis Kucinich's many runs for president this lavishly? How about Al Sharpton's many runs? How about Ron Paul's? How about Carol Moseley Braun? I think you'd have to agree that they did not, absolutely not. And why? Because they were not credible candidates.
I'm not exactly criticizing @Ryan, and I'm a big fan of his, and yours, but I think the question needs to be asked, reflected upon, and answered: Is journalism leading here, or following? I contend that this person would not be a credible candidate if not for mainstream journalism. They make her a candidate. She should be marginalized as the incompetent, unqualified joke that she is. Journalism is very good at marginalizing candidates. Why not here?
NOTE: my comparison between Vice Adm. Stockdale and Palin goes only to their common vice presidential candidacy. Stockdate is a decent, admirable man and it wasn't my intention to impugn his character by making any other comparison.
#37 Posted by James, CJR on Tue 9 Nov 2010 at 08:12 PM
Is it not possible to fact-check a politician and public figure such as Sarah Palin without being accused of being blinded by partisanship? When she is wrong, she is wrong. She is quick to point out when others have it incorrect and she has every right to do that. She also has the responsibility to get it right.
#38 Posted by Plethy, CJR on Tue 9 Nov 2010 at 09:34 PM
"That is, I am willing to bet $10,000 that Palin was correct in her economic commentary on this matter. Are you confident enough that she is wrong to bet against me?
Please respond here in the comments section. If you're brave enough to back up your verbal sniping with something substantial then we can work out the details and see who turns out to be right."
$10,000? In American dollars? Okay, I'll take you up on that.
What Palin said:
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/252715/palin-bernanke-cease-and-desist-robert-costa
"And I mean that literally: everyone who ever goes out shopping for groceries knows that prices have risen significantly over the past year or so."
What significant price increases means:
About 20% or more.
How much have food prices gone up:
About 2%.
There was a bump in fruits and vegetables in the beginning of the year due to the bad winter.
Beyond that the trend has been down.
http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?data_tool=latest_numbers&series_id=CUUR0000SAF1&output_view=pct_12mths
Yes consumers have been having problems getting food on the table, but that has not been a price problem, that's been an income problem. She was wrong.
You owe me $10,000, but I'll let you pay in 2040 as an object lesson in how inflation can help the over leveraged, over indebted.
#39 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Tue 9 Nov 2010 at 10:16 PM
@James,
Palin's chances of being a nominee are far greater than Kucinich's -- and her influence over the process is, too. Hence, more reports on Palin, less on Kucinich.
Editors and producers have limited budgets. They make decisions,. Those decisions are often flawed, even wrong. By deciding what to cover they shape the debate, no question, so there is something of a circular issue here about coverage begetting more coverage.
Some politicians get better coverage than they deserve, others worse. Some more, some less.
But the fact is that Palin has an ardent base and an equally ardent (and much larger) group who dislike her. She sparks responses and journalism requires responses to be relevant.
In a perfect world editors would jump on the many unreported facts I regard as breaking news in my columns at tax.com, but they don't. The world is not perfect, life is not fair and the best we can do is point out (and maybe at times rail about) the shortcomings so that now and then some attention is paid.
#40 Posted by David Cay Johnston, CJR on Wed 10 Nov 2010 at 01:02 AM
@David Cay Johnston: Rather than just interpreting an article how about blatantly misrepresenting an entire year? CJR's own Trudy Liberman reports that Obama is now calling Obamacare a "Republican plan" - and she thinks this "characterization" is just great!
So Obama is now trying to convince (who?) that all of his, Pelosi's and Reid's efforts were at the behest of Republicans?
I'm sorry, but this has to be the stupidest, most disingenuous line of reasoning ever. It flies utterly in the face of facts. And not only does Lieberman not challenge it, she thinks it's a winning strategy for 2012.
So Palin quotes a WSJ article (arguably correctly) and gets excoriated, while Obama makes a blatantly false statement about his main legislative legacy and is cheered by CJR.
#41 Posted by JLD, CJR on Wed 10 Nov 2010 at 01:10 AM
Obamacare WAS Republican. If it had the public option, if it had gave any sort of negotiating power to the government as a purchaser of drugs, if it had an effect on the state insurance monopolies, then you could say "Wow, what a democrat plan."
The republicans, like it or not, gave plenty of amendments and Grassley and Snowe had plenty of input into the plan, they just didn't vote for it.
That's not because the plan wasn't conservative enough. That's because republicans are BAD FAITH ACTORS who claim your grandma is going to die if the legislation they co-wrote gets passed.
And we can thank Sarah Palin's facebook status for for helping to elevate that tidbit of fiction.
James has a point, Sarah Palin is failed politician the way Suzanne Sommers was a failed actress and we shouldn't have to talk about her stupid twitters.
It's a pity we can't treat her like Michael Savage and the other right wing lie peddlers, but she has the spotlight whether she merits it or not.
#42 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Wed 10 Nov 2010 at 01:44 AM
Piedmont electrician
Took me time to read all the comments, but I really enjoyed the article. It proved to be Very helpful to me and I am sure to all the commenters here!
It’s always nice when you can not only be informed, but also entertained! I’m sure you had fun writing this article.
#43 Posted by kathy, CJR on Wed 10 Nov 2010 at 02:10 AM
@Mr. Johnston,
Thank you for your engagement. I am one of your biggest fans -- going back to your years at the LA Times. I always appreciate your weighing in on questions of journalism around the internet.
However, I think you are missing the point. Dennis Kucinich *was* a candidate. If you look at the coverage accorded to Ron Paul in 2004 -- an ardent, rabidly devoted base, just like Sarah Palin, controversial positions just like Sarah Palin, raised *a lot* of money from marginal groups; if you take Dennis Kucinich in 2004 -- a devoted liberal base, controversial positions, you didn't see the kind of obsessive, over-heated coverage promoting the candidacy of these marginal figures as you see with this woman. In fact, the press largely marginalized them and ignored them.
Here, you see CJR (respectable CJR!) featuring four pieces on Sarah Palin on their front page today fully two years before the presidential election.
I understand that she garners a lot of controversy and page views, and that's a legitimate factor in decisions about coverage for media organizations - editors, reporters, publishers. Why else would a journo fact-check some crackpot who posts on Facebook?
I don't think my contention is wrong, though, that her candidacy is a completely media-generated phenomenon. The fact that she has rabid fans by itself isn't sufficient to explain the amount of mainstream coverage that is lavished on her. If it weren't for Politico and WSJ, this crackpot would be off hunting grizzlies in the Alaskan wilderness. I foresee that it isn't going to end well.
#44 Posted by James, CJR on Wed 10 Nov 2010 at 05:51 AM
Jay - These are the winning lottery numbers for the next mega millions jackpot
5-3-20-11-95-50
I dare you not to play them. In fact, I'll bet you $10,000 right now that they will one day win. How do I know this? I don't really understand statistics or probability, but it very well could have something to do with that, because that's what I've heard these things come down to.
#45 Posted by Damien, CJR on Wed 10 Nov 2010 at 08:16 AM
There has never been any satisfying corroboration of claims that Sarah Palin has a college degree.
“How does anyone attend less than nine full-time semesters at four different schools, two of them community colleges, change their major at least twice, and still manage to get a degree?” is the question brought up in "Sarah Palin's Crazy College Daze -- A chronology of her College/University years" at http://www.cjr.org/the_audit/sarah_palin_as_media_critica_b.php
As far as I know, this is the only article to have done a thorough timeline of Sarah Palin's college attendence. While Kenton Bird, the director of the UI School of Journalism and Mass Media, is quoted as saying "Palin graduated in 1987 with a bachelor of science degree in journalism with a broadcast news option and a political science minor," it is not known whether he has verified this or is just repeating what he was told. We don't know if Bird can confirm that she did have the appropriate number of credits for graduation, given her erratic attendence at so many other schools.
#46 Posted by Ferry Fey, CJR on Wed 10 Nov 2010 at 09:21 AM
I'm done with Sarah Palin. When is Mike Gravel going to get the attention he so merits?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rZdAB4V_j8
He's got a tv show too!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bT9dKPtEX8g
#47 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Wed 10 Nov 2010 at 10:36 AM
It's interesting how her stupidity is quite strategic.
Although the cost of food has increased more slowly than it has for decades, families are feeling the pinch more strongly than ever because the lousy economy leaves them with less disposable income. So, from a "kitchen table" perspective, groceries are absolutely a concern in a way they haven't been for years. They cost more than we can afford.
What you do if you want to actually SOLVE this problem for families is note the empirical fact that low inflation is linked to our lousy economy, notice we're in a liquidity trap and decide it's time for anti-depression macroeconomic policies like the government borrowing money at record-low interest rates to finance worthy public goods that will pay off for generations to come while helping carry the economy through its current rough patch. You look to goose inflation slightly so that corporations and rich folks sitting on big piles of money that is holding its value instead realize they're in a "use it or lose it" situation, and start spending it on investments, goods, and HIRING.
If, on the other hand, you wanted to support the status quo in which rich people are doing quite well, you'd find a way to suggest families' real problems are actually due to high inflation and government spending. And, of course, it's always nice to suggest the media is lying to them and the only person they can trust is you.
Gotta go for the big lie.
#48 Posted by anon, CJR on Wed 10 Nov 2010 at 12:20 PM
"What significant price increases means: About 20% or more."
Er, no. Sorry, thimbles, but you don't get to declare and define your own terms, and then proclaim yourself the winner of the bet. That's how young children behave, not grown-ups.
That's why I made the point in my original comment that if someone was interested in actually backing up their petty snark with something worthwhile, I'd be willing to discuss the details of a bet with them. That discussion would necessarily entail defining and agreeing to specific objective terms, criteria, and timeframes for determining who was correct, escrow, payment terms, etc..
I was not issuing a challenge to see who could mindlessly shriek "I win!!!" the quickest. (Although if I had done that, you'd certainly be the victor.)
#49 Posted by Jay, CJR on Wed 10 Nov 2010 at 01:19 PM
Jay, your last post has exactly what was missing from your first post, and more to the point, from SP's conjecture/assertion. Some sort of method for testing veracity. Even if SP turned out to be right, it wouldn't be from some valid method, but rather a coincidence. SP can't be counted on for educated opinions on macroeconomics, or even, for that matter, what stuff costs at the grocery store in 2010. I don't think she's been to one in quite a long time.
But, alas, you are also not without blame - Why is the amount someone is willing to bet a reasonable gauge of how much they believe something? It may well be that $10,000 is too much to bet for anyone, for pretty well any belief. And it may be for any particular individual that any non-trivial amount of money is too important to risk on a reasonably held belief. Particularly when so many variables can lead to a 'bad beat" on a reasonably held belief about the future.
Its really a silly parlor trick to "argue" that way - not much better than a pissing contest, and I'd like to believe its beneath you.
#50 Posted by Damien, CJR on Wed 10 Nov 2010 at 02:04 PM
Jay,
Prices were up 1.4 percent in the last year at the time Sarah Palin said they were up "significantly." So, yes, "food prices in the U.S. had already started to increase due to inflation," and if you think I'm going to bet against the proposition "that they will continue to rise." I'm not going to bet on food prices going down, dude.
But you're confusing the issue. The point is she said they were up "significantly over the past year or so." That was false--they were up 1.4 percent, which is the lowest rate of inflation in nearly 20 years. She then said Reddy's own paper said something it didn't say. And dishonestly misled readers by quoting the paper and taking out the part that backed him up and directly contradicted her.
There is no gray area here. Food prices may increase significantly in the near future. But that's not what this was about.
#51 Posted by Ryan Chittum, CJR on Wed 10 Nov 2010 at 03:57 PM
Ryan Chittum:
I do appreciate that you responded, even though I find the content of that response to be a disappointment.
I'm not confusing any issue. As I said in my initial comment, I am willing to bet Sarah Palin's observations and economic commentary on this topic are correct.
However, I'm not willing to spend the time and effort arguing specifics when it's simply not worth my while. Without anything substantial to be gained, I'm content to just reiterate the general observations that you, like many of your commentators, are making disingenuous arguments and that you are not confident enough to risk anything more than empty words in defense of your claims.
#52 Posted by Jay, CJR on Wed 10 Nov 2010 at 05:33 PM
If we're so disingenuous, go to the BLS.gov data and prove it. Put up or do the alternative.
Cheers.
#53 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Wed 10 Nov 2010 at 05:44 PM
Ryan, not to beat a dead horse, but you are way off base in this. Palin referred to food prices going up, and they have indeed. And if you are talking about staples – which she was – the WSJ article affirms that they have indeed jumped in price. The remaining basket of goods that comprise the index may not be the staples she is referring to. Anyone who actually shops for groceries will affirm that the government indices can be misleading.
The WSJ article confirms that prices are up for staples and warns that more increases are in store thanks to QE2. Are you denying this?
But the real problem here is snark – a condescending, immature, sophomoric tone that you employ to deride someone you disagree with. The contrast with your wild-eyed defense of Obama could not be more telling.
I’m not a fan of Palin, but attitudes like yours are making me into one.
A lot of voters empathize with Palin and when you attack her they feel you are attacking them as well. Maybe you know that already, and are doing it on purpose? Possibly your distain for her is extended to those other voters (including your roots in Oklahoma?). If it hasn’t occurred to you this is a big reason why many middle-American voters distrust the press. Articles like this just add fuel to the fire.
#54 Posted by JLD, CJR on Wed 10 Nov 2010 at 06:25 PM
JLD: "Ryan, not to beat a dead horse, but you are way off base in this. Palin referred to food prices going up, and they have indeed."
PALIN: "And I mean that literally: everyone who ever goes out shopping for groceries knows that prices have risen significantly over the past year or so."
WRONG.
#55 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Wed 10 Nov 2010 at 06:36 PM
@James
Palin gets more coverage because as VP candidate in 2008 she became a household name; Kucinich ran in the primaries and got little coverage, which no doubt contributed to his small number of votes.
In an ideal world we would pay much more attention to a much wider spectrum of politicians -- the way Europeans and the Japanese do.
The best way to assess whether Palin is competent is to have her in the arena and to check out what she says, like her false statement about rising food prices and her dishonest retort.
In such matters there will always be people who will find truth in falsehood and insist that anyone who disagrees is in the tank, as shown by the fact-free posts by JLD. People who love the moonlights more than the harsh glare of the sun will tell you that day is night and there is no more to be gained by engaging suck kooky thinkers as arguing with a lunatic set free from an asylum without his meds.
That Palin is the subject of multiple CJR pieces at one time may reflect some excessive interest by the magazine, but it may also reflect the number of points that she or those who write about her have made that are not credible, are misleading or that raise questions about CJR's mission to review press performance.
I would sure like to see some intense scrutiny of other matters including
-- what Obama the candidate said and what he has done and why there has been so little coverage of the disparity between promise and performance;
-- how the press perpetuates myths like he hates white people (only one WH executive besides the President is black and the students who got top posts at the Harvard Law Review when he was editor were white), or that he was not born in America or that living in Indonesia as a child shows he is a Muslim (even though he attended a Catholic school) and on and on.
-- examining the coverage waterboarding (for which we have prosecuted American soldiers and executed Japanese soldiers) in the mid Aughts and President Bush's revealing that he authorized these war crimes, and seems oblivious to the fact that they are crimes even thought his is taught to all militart officers and he was an NG officer;
-- about the challenges to our official economic dogma, even though economists of the Smith, Georgian, Minsky and other heterodox schools have had a much better track record on some issues than the government-financed neoclassicists;
and about the shocking decline in the basic economic understandiong of some reporters for the NYT, WashPost, WSJ and other publications who write economic nonsense so ignorant it would earn an F in a high school economics class; things like confusing dividends with profits and not understanding the most basic issues of trade imbalances.
So stick to it, Ryan Chittum, and keep telling important stories that we need to read about politicians of all stripes, business issues and the journalists who write about these matters.
#56 Posted by David Cay Johnston, CJR on Wed 10 Nov 2010 at 07:50 PM
@David CJ: Now who is making an "ad hominem attack"? If you disagree with the specific points I made, show your reasoning.
Also, please advise where the media is saying that Obama "hates white people" - other than in your own fevered brain?
I certainly agree with you that Obama has not ben held to his campaign promises. Whatever happened to closing Gitmo in his first year? And why is there absolutely no coverage of his failure to carry through on that promise?
There are certainly many thing more important than try to sift through Palin's speeches for "Gotcha" moments. Why indeed not focus on them?
#57 Posted by JLD, CJR on Wed 10 Nov 2010 at 09:03 PM
Jay and JLD--this is the last time I'll bash my head against the wall arguing with you on this.
If you can't see plainly that she was wrong on this and that she was dishonest in her retort, then there's not much point bothering with you. These are just facts. There's no wiggle room here. She was wrong about grocery prices rising a bunch in the past year. They rose less than they had in 20 years. She did not refer to "staples." And curmudgeonly "dang groceries are sky high!" anecdotes are jack up against statistical evidence.
And your snark complaint is a good one, JLD. As if Palin isn't one of its foremost practitioners.
#58 Posted by Ryan Chittum, CJR on Wed 10 Nov 2010 at 09:43 PM
@Ryan: "Prices of staples including milk, beef, coffee, cocoa and sugar have risen sharply in recent months."
What is it about this quote that you don't understand?
Are you saying that Palin should have referenced only the overall index and not just "staples"? If so, that's a mighty slim quibble. Is that really worth not one but two snarky posts? And what other politician on the planet would be held to such a standard?
Why not actually do what reporters are supposed to do - go into a supermarket and check the prices?
#59 Posted by JLD, CJR on Wed 10 Nov 2010 at 10:31 PM
@Mr. Johnston,
I think we have come to agreement -- overheated concentration on Palin's Facebook when pressing and important issues of more urgent relevance are ignored. I agree with many of those you listed.
For the record, I think that @Ryan is a gifted journalist and I follow his business media coverage and criticism religiously. I would hope that I made clear that I wasn't criticizing him personally, but was criticizing the pack mentality in the mainstream media that forces talented journos like Ryan to chase these irrelevant items at the expense of more substantive issues.
Finally, there has been an overwhelming amount of coverage on Obama's campaign promises. If you've missed them, you just aren't paying attention.
-Try Politifact's Obameter
-Peter Baker at NYT covers all things Obama, relevant and irrelevant and has done a number of pieces about campaign promises. Here's a start: obama peter baker - NYTimes.com Search
- Try Politico obama campaign promises site:www.politico.com - Google Search
(I hope these links pass the spam filter.)
Every mainstream media outlet has written a number of pieces on campaign promises fulfilled and unfulfilled. I am baffled at your assertion.
As for JLD's complaint about Obama having as yet failed to close GTMO, of course he/she doesn't read mainstream coverage so wouldn't know about the very extensive coverage of the failure to close GTMO in the New York Times, Washington Post, in fact every mainstream outlet has covered that subject on numerous occasions. One probably doesn't know that when one confines his/her reading to Newsbusters. It's called epistemic closure.
#60 Posted by James, CJR on Wed 10 Nov 2010 at 10:46 PM
Looks like Ryan has found his new Emanuel Goldstein, jumping from Dinesh D'Souza to Sarah Palin.
There's no wiggle room here. She was wrong about grocery prices rising a bunch in the past year. They rose less than they had in 20 years.
Well Ryan, had you bothered to actually look a bit deeper into the BEA’s numbers and how there is a bit more to the story than he’s willing to admit. A more detailed look at the CPI data shows that while “overall prices” rose by only 1.1%, prices of many staples have exploded. Pork: 10%, bacon: 15%, beef: 6%, eggs: 11%, milk: 8.3%, butter: 19.5%. And lets not even start with what’s happened with fuel. So for people who buy a lot of staples like butter, pork chops, beef roasts, eggs and milk, it certainly would seem that prices have gone up a whole bunch in 2010.
As for the reason for these increases however, I don’t think that the Fed’s printing presses set to warp 9 have much to do with it … yet. Crop yield, higher fertilizer prices, weather events etcetera have played some role to be sure. But of you can honestly say that printing trillions of dollars wont drive prices of everything through the roof sooner rather than later? Food producers have resisted the urge to raise prices on “processed foods” (unlike commodity based foods) because they don’t want to lose market share, but large food producers like Craft, Sarah Lee, General Mills have seen profits fall due to surging commodity prices. How long do you expect them to hold the line on prices consider that the underlying commodity price is rising not falling or steady?
I realize that admitting that would be going against every Krugman/Obama/Baker lovin’ bone in your body but you do realize that you are ignoring what could very well be the next HUGE story in the financial world? Don’t-cha-think that the world markets abandoning the dollar over a potentially reckless monetary policy and a new era of stagflation would be newsworthy?
Back to the overall 1.1% dead horse that Ryan has been beating on here, the BEA’s estimation of inflation and how it weights prices increases and decreases is certainly not without its critics but I guess since no Journolister has gone there, its probably a stone you will leave unturned.
@ David Cay Johnston: seriously man, no one outside the of DC/New York/West Coast gives a flying fuck that KSM was water boarded. Every man who graduated SERE had it done to them.
#61 Posted by Mike H, CJR on Wed 10 Nov 2010 at 11:04 PM
@Mike H
Well I don't live in the areas you describe and I know many people in my town of Midwestern social sensibilities, across a broad spectrum of views, who also care because they understand that our freedoms exist only so long as we remain a nation of laws, not men.
#62 Posted by David Cay Johnston, CJR on Thu 11 Nov 2010 at 04:48 AM
@Mike H
I don't live in the areas you describe and I know many people in my town of Midwestern social sensibilities, across a broad spectrum of views, who also care about war crimes committed against many people (including the 180 or so waterboardings of KSM in 30 days) because they understand that our freedoms exist only so long as we remain a nation of laws, not men.
The military's own studies show that torture does not produce useful information, which is just one of the reasons American law makes torture a crime.
Like many other journalists, I watchdog abuses of government power, be it siphoning off funds to friends, framing the innocent and thus letting the guilty go free to commit more crimes, or engaging in criminal acts under color of law.
#63 Posted by David Cay Johnston, CJR on Thu 11 Nov 2010 at 04:53 AM
I thank all who have contributed to this blog. I greater informed after reading so many view points. So, Thank you all very much! Something that really troubles me is the true Sarah Palin crowd fails to answer one real question.. She quit as Governor- life for her became to hard. The Governor who could not Govern because it was to tough.. If a military commander say a Captain of a ship quit because it was to tough- Should this Captain be promoted to Admiral and be awarded a Fleet of ships to Command? I think the answer is quite obvious... This just some food for thought- and I have not noticed any significant raise in my food prices.. Much Love and Blessings. Michael
#64 Posted by Michael Carey, CJR on Thu 11 Nov 2010 at 12:07 PM
Michael Carey, you made the most sense on this board! Palin IS a quitter and she should not continue to be adored and idolized by some of the population of this country that is acting exceedingly lemming-like. Those people refuse to listen to anything negative about her...they believe every lying word she says. Personally, I do not like her after I found out how cruel she is towards wild animals. Her policies on that turned me completely against her, and I am a conservative Republican. She says stupid things, and I can't stand stupidity like that in so-called politicians. During the political debates she did not even answer the majority of questions put to her and everyone there, including Biden, let her get away with it. That was so frustrating! As for this debate on food, I have not noticed any significant raise in the price of food either, and I DO pay attention to those kinds of things. Palin is like a disease that won't go away. How can people be so blind as to what kind of dangerous fool this woman is!?
#65 Posted by Lin, CJR on Mon 15 Nov 2010 at 02:09 AM
As I read this story, I think about how lucky the people Wasliia and for that matter the great people of Alaska for getting that illinformed, undereducated boob out of youe state and out of your pockets. She had Wasilla heading for bankruptcy and who knows what would have happened to Alaska if she would of stayed there any longer. Thank goodness she was still trying to find her way ( without help ) to the capital and didn't have time to ( I hate to say this ) legislate very much before she quit to go make money working for Fox. But, you great people of Alaska owe me. You owe me for having to even know her name let alone her being on the world stage and shoved down my throat by a right wing media ready for her to do their biding. You owe me Alaska. You give me allot with your majestic beauty but, it doesn't out weigh what I have to deal with everyday, Palins ignorant spewing masked by people like Glen Beck as words of wisdom. You owe me Alaska but, please don't try to pay me with more Palin dollars because they came from Fox.
#66 Posted by Bill McKee, CJR on Mon 29 Nov 2010 at 05:26 PM