History is like so yesterday ;)

Dean,

Are you suddenly screening comments now? Instead of being posted automatically, they now get reviewed first, per the response generated upon submission of a comment.

Hopefully you're not going the route of censoring folks who point out errors of fact or flaws in your argumentation.

Dean,

Ahh, as follow up to my prior comment, I'm glad to see that's not happening any more.

Dean,

It may have been the multiple links in the comment I tried to post earlier that triggered the review mechanism. I'll try breaking up my comment across a few comments.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dean,

I really don't have time to maintain a "Beat Beat the Press" blog, but you do provide a lot of material. Yet again, as you ironically claim to be the exposer of false and misleading reporting, you make false and misleading claims.

Let's start with your quote from today's WaPo (my emphasis added)
The stimulus package has now tripled from its post-election estimate of about $300 billion, and in recent days lawmakers in both parties have grown wary of the swelling cost.

You then ridicule WaPo by quoting a 12/6/08 WaPo article (my emphasis added):
Many members of Congress have speculated that the spending package could reach $500 billion or more, while some economists have predicted the government might spend as much as $1 trillion

First, Dean, do you understand the difference between and "estimate" and and upper limit -- expressed as "as much as" or "could reach" or "up to"? When I see in store windows "Up to 30% off !" I don't assume that that means "Everything 30% off !" or even that discounts are on average 30% or that most items are 30% off.

Second, in a snarky way you assert that WaPo's account is wrong, and that a check of their own reporting would have revealed the true facts to them, implying that they are either incredibly sloppy reporters or worse: that they know the facts and are simply lying, which is your implication when you call the report "Another Washington Post Front Page Editorial Against the Stimulus".

(continued)

(continued)

Well, let's check the facts.

WaPo was referring to the "post-election estimate". I suppose anything that happens between 11/4/08 and the rest of eternity could, by the broadest definition, be considered "post-election", but if you are going to accuse a media entity of lying or knowlingly misleading readers, I think a narrower definition is in order, or is at the very least worth noting.

Your second WaPo quote -- the one you imply reveals WaPo's big lie -- was from 12/6/08. The election was on 11/4/08.

It took me a whole ten minutes or so to do a search on WaPo with a date range (and a quick Google) to check on what was reported in the couple of weeks following the election. Obviously you could have found the same if you had wanted to.

WaPo 11/6/08:
With the nation sliding into what is expected to be a severe recession, economists are calling on the federal government to pump at least $150 billion -- and as much as $500 billion -- into the economy to blunt the most painful effects of rising joblessness and stalled consumer spending. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/05/AR2008110503980.html

(continued)

(continued)

WaPo 11/7/08:

Democrats are working on a $100 billion spending package that could be considered as early as this month if the Bush administration drops its opposition and agrees to negotiate a measure the president will sign. That package will probably include money for public works projects to create jobs, a 13-week extension of unemployment benefits, additional funds for food stamps and aid to strapped state governments struggling to cover the rising cost of heath care for the poor.

Automakers hope it will also contain another round of low-interest loans for them to retool factories...

Another stimulus package, to be assembled after Obama takes office in January, could grow to well over $100 billion and would include a permanent tax cut for moderate and lower-income families, Democrats said yesterday.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/06/AR2008110603958.html

(continued)

(continued)

ABC News (George Stephanopoulos) 11/11/08:

President-elect Barack Obama is hearing from private sector economists, and some members of his economic advisory team that Congress should consider -- and he should sign into law in January -- a far broader stimulus package than anyone has publicly discussed to date.
Instead of $300 billion dollars, which has been the upper limit, they are now talking about $500 billion, which is 3 to 4 percent of GDP.

President-elect Barack Obama has made no final decisions on a stimulus package, but this is what they're contemplating right now.

--George Stephanopoulos http://blogs.abcnews.com/george/2008/11/obama-advisers.html

(continued)

(continued)

ABC News (George Stephanopoulos) 11/24/08:

You heard it here first.

As we first reported two weeks ago, President-elect Barack Obama is considering a stimulus package in the $500-billion range, which is 3 to 4 percent of GDP.

That's a far larger stimulus package than the $175-billion Obama proposed on the campaign trail. Or the $300-billion stimulus which had been discussed as the upper limit. http://blogs.abcnews.com/george/2008/11/obama-wants-500.html

So, Dean, maybe you should send WaPo a letter of apology. Or at least acknowledge your error (assuming it was a sincere error) here. Whaddaya say?

(end)

Dean / ALL,

PLEASE NOTE:

In my last three comments, all content should have been italicized -- i.e., the content consists entirely of quotations from those media sources -- except for the last paragraph of the last comment in which I address Dean.

Brooks,

please read your post. The quote from Stephanopoulous referred to a package of $500 billion which he describes as "3 to 4 percent of GDP." That's a 1-year package, not a 2 -year package. Obama's package is less than 3 percent of GDP.

Dean,

Actually, I'd like YOU to read my comments and respond directly to the case I've made that you have been quite unfair to WaPo and have misled your readers on this matter.

Your reply is not only obviously a non-response response focused on some cherry-picked element of one of the quotes, but is also misleading in itself. The package size is the package size, whether or not the dollars were intended to be spent over one year or two, and even if Stephanopolous presumed, as he apparently did, that it would be spent all in one year. WaPo referred to a post-election estimate of a $300 billion package and stated that the estimate has now tripled. That statement is essentially accurate (perhaps even understating the multiple, given that at least Stephanopolous reported $300 billion as an initial maximum that no longer applied as of 11/11).

Are you going to take a serious look at my comments and reply with something resembling a direct, logical response? Weren't you wrong in your criticism of WaPo's statement regarding the initial post-election estimate?????

Dude - Brooks, he's got better things to do than address your Master's Thesis.

Regular,

He's a big boy. He doesn't need you to provide cover for him to avoid the question. And it would take him all of about two minutes.

Thing is, he probably doesn't want to give a straight, logical answer that actually addresses my argument, because he probably sees that I'm right -- that he goofed (assuming it was a sincere error on his part), and doesn't want to admit it.

It ain't the first time. Not by a long shot, as ironic as that is considering the supposed mission of this blog.

Brooks,

I'm not doing the Google search or getting into the multiples discussion. I would note that David Leonhard in the business section of this morning's Times does a serious analysis on the stimulus bill. Like most serious economic analysts, he concludes that it's probably too small for the enormous need. There are plenty of conservative economists who might argue about the composition of the stimulus but would agree that it's a mistake to aim too low.

In this context, Dean is correct that the Washington Post is writing front-page editorials on behalf of the Republican caucuses in the House and Senate.

Jack,

Your comment has nothing to do with the point I've made here.

It seems like the controversy in comments is centered around what amount in dollars 3% of the GDP is/was.

Your article is write very well, I like it very much ~
I wish you have a wonderful day!Thank you.
classic ugg boots