NEW HAMPSHIRE — Yesterday, Mother Jones released a secretly-recorded video of Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney making the following comments at a May 17 fundraiser in Florida:
There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that’s an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what…
These are people who pay no income tax. 47 percent of Americans pay no income tax. So our message of low taxes doesn’t connect…
And so my job is not to worry about those people. I’ll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.
The video attracted such extensive interest—including a long clip on NBC Nightly News—that Romney was forced to defend his comments in a rare evening press conference.
The story continued to receive widespread coverage this morning. Here in New Hampshire, which overlaps several media markets, it was covered on all the local or network morning shows in Boston and Burlington, Vermont, as well as on WMUR in Manchester, and by two major print outlets. So how did the media do in covering the story? Two key failures emerged—a failure to provide sufficient policy context in reporting and a presumption that the video revealed Romney’s true self.
Reporting on the video has focused on its potential political consequences for Romney, but these may be overstated. As the political scientist John Sides correctly noted last night, gaffes and impolitic statements like Romney’s rarely have significant effects on candidate support. (The Etch-a-Sketch metaphor used by a Romney advisor and President Obama’s statement that “the private sector is doing fine,” for instance, are already distant memories.)
What was missing from most coverage, however, was context on the factual claims that Romney made. For instance, the Boston Globe, which is widely read in southern New Hampshire, ran two stories on its website—one by Matt Viser that omitted any policy context and one by Glen Johnson which put Romney’s claim into context as follows:
Romney classified this 47 percent as those Americans who pay no federal income tax, though fact-checkers quickly noted that in roughly half of those cases, the people are senior citizens on fixed incomes, and the remainder in the group include students and members of the US military.
Unfortunately, only Viser’s story ran in the print edition of the Globe, depriving most of the paper’s readers of the context necessary to understand exactly who Romney was describing as “dependent upon government” in his statement. The Washington Post similarly published a process-oriented Philip Rucker story in print instead of a Rachel Weiner story that appeared earlier on the newspaper’s website. Laudably, however, the Concord Monitor reprinted Weiner’s Post story in its print edition instead of Rucker’s. Monitor readers therefore learned, per Weiner:
While it’s true that 47 percent of Americans do not pay federal income tax, most of those people pay payroll taxes. Those that pay neither are overwhelmingly elderly or making less than $20,000 a year, according to a Tax Policy Center analysis. Low income people also pay state and local taxes.
(The state’s largest newspaper—the New Hampshire Union Leader—did not cover the controversy in today’s paper.)
I've tried to be polite in the past, but I have to say this is the most ridiculous of Brendan Nyhan's many ridiculous columns attempting to deny or play down the obvious about Mitt Romney's campaign and to debunk accurate media characterizations of Romney.
First of all, despite Nyhan's wishing it were so, the Romney aide's Etch-a-Sketch comment is hardly a distant memory. It's brought up all the time in media reports and columns and posted comments. It's kept alive by Romney's constant revisions of previous positions.
The initial stories about Romney's leaked video that I saw, in the NY Times, NPR, Yahoo News, etc., all mentioned prominently that about 47% of Americans make too little to pay federal income tax. I saw plenty of context in the articles I read.
Nyhan's most ridiculous and astonishing assertion is questioning whether Romney's leaked comments reveal his "true character or beliefs." Who should we believe -- Nyhan, or our own eyes and ears? Romney said what he said in unmistakable terms at an event that he thought was off the record. What he said is perfectly consistently with his trickle-down economic proposal to drastically lower taxes on wealthy people, and most likely to raise them on lower-income people. (BTW, conservative Times columnist David Brooks also bashed Romney for his comments).
Brendan, you think he was just "crafting his message" for that rich audience and it doesn't necessarily represent what he thinks? Read the comments again, pal. Play those comments for a cross-section of American voters and see whether they think those comments represent Romney's real views.
Contrary to what Nyhan advises, journalists should not resist the urge to engage in evidence-based analysis, as they have done with this story. But I would say with this column Brendan Nyhan forfeits the right to tell journalists anything about how to do their job.
#1 Posted by Harris Meyer, CJR on Tue 18 Sep 2012 at 02:17 PM
"What was missing from most coverage, however, was context on the factual claims that Romney made."
Jesus Christ Brendan, no! Plenty of people made that point, it's been made countless times here, since - as I said elsewhere - it's really just the rephrasing of an old tea bagger slogan.
The problem isn't that Romney pointed out 47% of people don't pay federal income tax - a situation republicans created - but that Romney, a professional tax avoider, uses the federal income tax arguement to label near half the country as lost to the president's 'moocher culture'. That they won't vote with Mitt Romney because they are stamping their feet, like Thumper the rabbit, for the free stuff that Obama's going to give them. According to Romney, 47% of the country is entitlement addicted and, as president, he's not going to be concerned with that 47%.
This is an extraordinarily stupid thing to say even if it were right, which it isn't. There are plenty of people who are from the lower income strata who are devote, Limbaugh listening, Fox news watching, guarandamnteed republican voters and Romney just lumped them in with the moochers because his party, and the Democrats since the stimulus, have taken away their federal income tax burden.
This may not be 'what Romney believes' in his sincere and unknowable heart of hearts, but this is what his party believes, this is what he's run on, and this is what he'll be pressured to act upon when he takes office. If it's not his 'true belief' and he can't keep his mouth from parroting it in an campaign environment where every word is a time bomb, what makes you think he'll be able to do it with Vice President Ryan in the Cheney role and all the big money screaming at him on the phone to 'do the right thing or we'll get someone who will!'?
Why in the hell is David freaking 'thick as a post' Brooks get this and yet you don't?
#2 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Tue 18 Sep 2012 at 02:20 PM
Suppose Romney spoke at a whites-only club and used the n word. Would you say that we can never really know his true beliefs? Or would you say, rather, that a presidential candidate should never say such a thing?
We can never know his true beliefs, but that's really irrelevant. The point is that this is not the sort of thing a president should say.
#3 Posted by David, CJR on Tue 18 Sep 2012 at 02:49 PM
People actually think it really matters which blood-thirsty, warmongering, corporatist-statist bankster-bubba gets elected. Hilarious!
#4 Posted by Dan A., CJR on Tue 18 Sep 2012 at 04:18 PM
Mitt “The Moocher” Romney says he’s against expanding the Welfare State
http://tinyurl.com/8l2wxy5
#5 Posted by dave palmer, CJR on Tue 18 Sep 2012 at 05:20 PM
I think you missed the mark just a little bit in your last paragraph. Unquestionably, people do act differently in different contexts. The assumption that politicians have a "true self" follows from the observation that the candidate's and party's marketingcampaign communications, especially in the US, are thoroughly worthless when it comes to predicting the policies an official will eventually develop and practice. It is also obvious to anyone who's ever been on a job interview (and how is a campaign otherwise) that, when under scrutiny and on the record, people will act to the extent of their ability to dissuade scrutiny and control the record such that it reflects them in the most favorable light, whether or not that has any basis in their "true self".
Just as the prospective employer is looking to divine the "employee self" of their candidate, what responsible citizens seek is some glimpse of the "policy self" of their candidate, the principles and prejudices that will predict how the elected official will direct the force of government and to whose benefit those directions inure. It's probably reasonable to expect that those with $50k of their own to direct would not put it toward a $200 meal without some expectation that the other $49,800 would produce a better return than any of the numerous other ways that $49,800 could be put to productive use.
Now, having observed that policy in the past couple or three decades has largely inured to the benefit of those in a position to drop $50k on a fundraiser dinner, it's probably also reasonable to expect that in turn, the sales pitch for which he is being paid by a discerning elite probably diverges less from his "policy self" than the historically false pablum for mass consumption.
People do behave differently in different contexts. To gain insight into how a candidate governs, it is important to weigh each observation regarding a candidate in proportion to how similar that context is to the context of governing. Clearly, by credulously reporting this campaign nonsense far out of proportion to its absolute or relative value to citizens who care less about a candidate's star power or pre-fab list of "the dog ate my platform" excuses than about how this candidate will actually help or hinder their daily existence if elected, journalists are doing the public and the record a capital disservice.
#6 Posted by Jonathan, CJR on Tue 18 Sep 2012 at 05:26 PM
"The underlying problem is the assumption that politicians have a true self that must somehow be revealed, which has infected coverage of Romney since the beginning of the campaign."
Mitt Romney has done less to humanize himself, or to explain his motivation for wanting the Presidency, or really much of anything about himself of any major candidate I can recall since I started watching elections in 1980.
So in a sense, maybe the search for a 'true self' has infected coverage. But I'd stipulate that is because most voters feel like we still have no idea who Mitt Romney is. And that's a serious flaw of his campaign (or him as a candidate) and not an indictment of the press.
#7 Posted by RaflW, CJR on Tue 18 Sep 2012 at 06:01 PM
"It’s at least as likely that Romney was crafting his message to his audience at the fundraiser just as much as he does at his public events."
Oh, okay, so he's either a complete right-wing over-wealthed scumbag, or he's just a disingenuous, pandering liar who no one should trust anyway. No problem.
Is this really an argument now? "It doesn't matter what politicians say, we all know they;re complete liars!" Now we are a complete nation of imbeciles (as well as, apparently, Sam-baciles).
#8 Posted by Dave, CJR on Tue 18 Sep 2012 at 09:00 PM
I'm struck by the feeding frenzy associated with this comment - imagine, a conservative candidate expresses conservative concerns about what should not be controversial, that Democratic political strategy since the New Deal has featured the creation of dependent constituencies. Most, uh, 'analysis' has focused narrowly on the 47% statistic, instead of the core issue.
At the moment, relations with Israel are tense over the Iran-nuclear weapons issue. Not too long ago, President Obama was caught (not for the first time) saying something with a hot microphone around that he would not have said publicly, about Israel's prime minister. Any resonance there? It's down the media memory hole, as usual.
The anti-Republican bias is, to repeat for the slow learners above, in the selection and hyping of what is and is not 'news'. Also how it is framed. Past campaign-season examples furnished upon request.
#9 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Wed 19 Sep 2012 at 12:10 PM
BTW, three, count 'em, stories on CJR's front page on this '47%' story. Overkill, especially after VP Biden's race-baiting comments were duly noted, then forgotten.
Nothing about Media Matters being used as a shill by the Holder Justice Department, either. Would CJR ignore, let us say, co-ordination between a Republican Justice Department and the (much less well-funded) Media Research Center to try to tamp down or discredit fiascos by a Republican administration? To answer this question honestly brings the reader closer to understanding the conservative contempt for 'the mainstream media' with its high stated principles and low political partisanship.
#10 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Wed 19 Sep 2012 at 05:00 PM
"BTW, three, count 'em, stories on CJR's front page on this '47%' story. Overkill..."
Yeah it's not a big deal when a candidate running within a democracy dismisses half the electorate as not worth his concern because they all just want free stuff.
Why would the guy talking his way into an epic presidential loss be an interesting story?
Oh, I know! We must be the ones who are getting sad and desperate. I see now.
You blow my mind Mark. You blow my mind.
#11 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Wed 19 Sep 2012 at 08:33 PM
Good quote from Maya Angelou that applies to Nyhan's argument about Romney's real views (cited by Charles Blow of the NYT):
“When people show you who they are believe them; the first time.”
http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/19/blow-i-know-why-the-caged-bird-shrieks/?hp
#12 Posted by Harris Meyer, CJR on Wed 19 Sep 2012 at 11:27 PM
I suspect this article was done more for the page views, not for the informed public.
How the audition for slate going?
At any rate, Mr Delong has a word or two up:
http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2012/09/the-republican-noise-machine-and-mitt-romney-the-con-artist-conned.html
"Romney's claim that the Republican message of income tax cuts focused on the rich does not resonate for these 47% seems to me to be largely wrong.
But Romney's claim that these 47% are "moochers" who will never have personal responsibility or care for their lives is simply insane.
So how did Romney come to think that:
The Democratic base is 47%.
These 47% are the same 47% who don't pay taxes.
These 47% will never have a sense of personal responsibility.
These 47% will never care for their lives.
?
I am thinking that there were lots and lots of conversations over the years about "those people", and how they do not care about their lives, and about how they have no sense of personal responsibility, and about how they envy the rich. I am thinking of right-wing science fiction novels that preach about how by the middle of the 21st century the United States was divided into "citizens" and "taxpayers"--with the unproductive, lazy, uneducated masses of the first penned into their ghettoes and living off of the second. I am thinking that, as Ta-Nehisi Coates puts it: we are all welfare queens now. I am thinking that Romney and his speechwriters have spent much, much, much too much time at the American Enterprise Institute where, the General Theory of Moocherhood, as Mark Schmitt puts it, is being developed."
It's fitting that the think tanks brought about by Powell's memo and the need to inject the rich into public policy have helped ruin their last chance to cash in the southern strategy.
#13 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Thu 20 Sep 2012 at 11:13 AM
Really, CJR, when you post a satirical column please mark it as such. It is hilarious, though. Where to start, since I'm overwhelmed by the absurdities? "The underlying problem is the assumption that politicians have a true self that must somehow be revealed..." So no politician has a true self, not even Mitt? Ignoring that, I can't draw any other inferrence from your "serious article" than that it's not a good idea for reporters to try and discover a politcian's true self, because, obviously, knowing what internal beliefs influence a politician's decisions can't POSSIBLY be useful to voters. What a knee slapper!
This assumption also invalidates all those philosophers who have postulated for millenia that a person's true character is revealed under stress. So we can't draw any inferrence from Sarah Barracuda, who, when the going got tough - in her efforts to govern Alaska while brooking absolutely NO criticsism - well, got going. Certainly, we shouldn't think that should give us any clue about how she'd do when, as they used to say, the nukes start flying, or, as we might say today, the planes start hitting the towers.
Although, we certainly must take into account what a politician might be allowed to do by outside forces - including parties so radical that they have, say, driven out - or underground - pratically ALL moderates - by your logic it would even be absurd to try and divine how susceptible they would be under such pressure. Since you're gracing us with your one liners, please then explain to voters what they should use as criteria, since you've invalidated the two most traditionals methods in one side splitting stroke.
Ignoring Mr. Nyhan, and adressing myself to serious readers, there are so many points that ALL the media have missed, or at least came nowhere close to the bullseye. It shouldn't be a surprise to anyone that politicians pander. Look at Dick Cheyney. Practically every other week he went in front of a hate filled, radical right group and said the most imflammatory things he could. Then apologized. Then did the same thing all over again. So which of the two actions are we supposed to believe? The apology? Neither? Yeah, I guess those didn't reveal his true self, didn't reveal the man who outed Valerie Flame and put her life in danger purely out of politcal spite. And no, Mark Richard, the "mainstream media" didn't make all those statements up.
Many of the commentators hovered around the target and missed it. They hinted at, but didn't really spell out the true absurdities of Romney's comments. Sure, he was pandering to ultra-rich, extremely well healed donors, who are STILL frustrated because they can't hold onto every penny in their Scrooge like grips. The really bizarre thing is that so many wealthy Americans believe that military personnel should pay the same tax rate that rich do, even though the military personnel aren't paying that through the inconvenience of serving their country. Service that America's wealthy have traditionally avoided: "Rich man's war, poor man's fight". So should senior citizens, stuck with a fixed income, while prices climb and their medical bills skyrocket. And much of the latter profit goes back in the rich American's pockets. And people who haven't even got a dependable income, should pay the same tax rate. Allnbecause they weren't hard working enough to become wealthy the way so many others have: by inheriting it.
The funniest question, though, is why would anyone back a candidate that started with 47% of the people against him?
#14 Posted by mediaman13, CJR on Wed 26 Sep 2012 at 10:08 AM
My above post was originally paragraphed. I guess you'll have to ask CJR's IT people why it isn't now.
Since I'm posting again, I must say the "mainstream media" makes me laugh, though, by picking up the script from the phony right "news" (noise) machine about Joe Biden. If he had put the word economic before the word chains, he would have more clearly spelled out what most of us got, anyway. Something that his audience got not because they were black, but because many were middle class or, at least, hadn't forgotten about the middle class. The analogy is that economic slavery is closer to actual slavery than we're often comfortable comtemplating. Remember sharecropping?
And do you remember the middle class?. The middle class that so many RIGHT WING commentators say we're waging war on? Biden's audience got it, and enthusiastically applauded. They weren't so enthusiastic to Romney/Ryan, though. Must be because practically all blacks are moochers, lol.
Funny, I don't recall seeing any black faces in the Romney tape. Maybe they were in the serving line. Even is Biden was playing the race card, here's some advice to the deaf radical right (tilting at windmills, I know) from a moderate. Liberals wouldn't be able to play the race card so often, if conservatives hadn't decided to make it the trump of the right wing deck.
#15 Posted by mediaman13, CJR on Wed 26 Sep 2012 at 10:35 AM