Great to have you back! Hope you had a fine holiday.

I side with David Strickler: great to have you back, Dean!
I see you have contributed to a discussion in the Australian magazine 'The Monthly'.. Unfortunately the Australian media's coverage of the financial crisis closely resembles that of the 'Washington Post'.

Welcome back, Dean.

Maybe I've missed something, but I haven't see any questions directed at any sort of leader in the Republican party about its recent history with deficits or how their preferred policies would affect the deficit. There are legitimate questions to ask about the deficit, no matter which side some institution is questioning, but even if you are asking crappy ones and raising shallow concerns, shoudln't you do that for both sides? You'd think The Washington Post would find time to ask the Republican leaders in congress how their package of massive tax cuts with only the most superficial spending cuts would affect the deficit, but apparently not.

Dean,

Re:
There is no doubt which side the Washington Post is on.

Is that yet another thinly veiled charge that the journalists (and everyone else) at a major newspaper are part of an evil conspiracy?

Please be more explicit and state what is "obvious": Which "side" is the Washington Post "obviously on", and what are you saying is their motivation (not just their supposed agenda, but why they supposedly prefer and supposedly pursue that agenda)?

And I'll suggest and request yet again the following http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/beat_the_press_archive?month=05&year=2009&base_name=usa_todays_latest_scare_story#comment-6279960 , and anyone can feel free to link back one at a time to see how many times I've asked just recently.

Still waiting. Again, seems like it would be in the interest of your agenda and a service to your readers for you to provide such a list (i.e., tell them who is in on the conspiracy to deceive the public so they know upfront who not to listen to), and if you did so it wouldn't continue to seem like you just, well, conveniently accuse people of being in on this grand, evil, public deception conspiracy after the fact -- after they contradict your assertions) after the fact. Of course, if that's your M.O. -- as opposed to you actually having a good sense of who is and isn't a reasonably competent, reasonably objective and honest reporter/columnist, I can see why you always abstain from responding to my request/suggestion, because it would leave you with only two options: (1) Present a relatively short list of those you claim to be in on this evil conspiracy to deceive the public (essentially so that rich guys can rip off seniors, as your assertion goes), which would make it look a bit suspect when many other journalists subsequently contradict you and you only then suddenly happen to "discover" that they are in on the conspiracy, or (2) present a very long list to try to cover as many bases as possible, which would make readers wonder if you imagine little green men under your bed.

So you see, it's not that I can't imagine a good reason (good, from the perspective of your self-interest as a professional partisan, that is) why you would never respond to my request/suggestion. I just want to keep giving you the opportunity, and showing your readers that I'm asking, and perhaps you'll respond, which may be helpful to some in some way, or you'll continue to fail to respond, which will be informative per the above.

Great! Thank you!

Yes, odd article. It compares Obama to Clinton and makes no comparison between Bush and Obama. Bush clearly did more to "... expansion of the government in the economy as a whole" with his spending spree over eight years. What about the added expenses over the next few decades for paying veteran expenses (medical and retirement) as a result of Iraq.

The nanny article is interesting too. Maybe DC will have to consider the laws they are considering in New York State for protecting domestic workers.

Brooks, it's pretty obvious why he doesn't bother to respond to you. I wonder if you think there was a conspiracy in the recent credit default swaps debacle?

fuller schmidt,

Right On!! Ms. or Mr. Brooks is obviously more interested in displaying his own views than in viewing the obvious.

Fuller & EconDumbo,

It is, of course, expected that members of the hyperpartisan choir (you, presumably) will try to defend (however lamely) the preacher and provide him cover for not responding to a request and suggestion that would be simple, fairly quick and advantageous for him to comply with if he actually has the goods and has a valid supporting argument.

Again, if Dean can at least provide even a somewhat thorough list of the publications whose reporters, columnists and editorial boards are in on this evil conspiracy to deceive the public so that rich guys can get richer at the expense of needy seniors, wouldn't it serve the interest of his cause to provide this list upfront to his readers so that they know that articles/columns/editorials from those sources are intended to be deceptive?

I realize it's much more...ahem...convenient for him to wait until someone at some major publication contradicts him and only then say "Ahah! He's only saying that because he's in on the conspiracy!" But doing so is, well, less credible, and while credibility may not be a factor with the hyperpartisan choir (who will pretty much automatically believe anything said by anyone on their "side"), again, I go back to the service that such a list would be to his readers, enabling them to spot the "bad guys" upfront (lest they even consider what that source has to say).

And let me add, to ensure clarity, that I am not speaking of Dean merely pointing out mistakes made by members of the press, but to his persistent accusations of intent, of deliberately misleading people -- "trying to scare people" -- into adopting policies that harm seniors to benefit rich folks. So far, it seems (just from my own off-hand recollection of recent Beat The Press posts), at the very least the reporters, editorial boards and many staff columnists of the New York Times, The Washington Post, and USA Today are all evil co-conspirators, although I'm sure I'm leaving out plenty, not to mention leaving out organizations seeking realistic solutions to our long-term fiscal imbalance (as opposed to suggestions based on convenient, wishful thinking in terms of the underlying economics and/or ideological posturing rather than pragmatic compromise).

So why doesn't Dean just take ten minutes or whatever and lay out such a list?

Probably for at least one of the reasons I provided in my prior comment.

Welcome back, Dean...please ignore today's nutjob.

Brooks: Read Manufacturing Consent

S Brennan,

Applicable to you as well is what I wrote above:
It is, of course, expected that members of the hyperpartisan choir (you, presumably) will try to defend (however lamely) the preacher and provide him cover for not responding to a request and suggestion that would be simple, fairly quick and advantageous for him to comply with if he actually has the goods and has a valid supporting argument.

For conspiracy lovers...

"So, back to the mystery. Why are the ostensibly liberal Center for American Progress and New York Times participating in the Debt Scare right now?"

Robert Reich in
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2009/06/11/deficits/

DD,

Thank you for the book recommendation. Looks worth getting that perspective. I'll order it.

Most commenters here (and probably most consumers of partisan media, whether its American Prospect or American Spectator, etc.) really should read the books I recommend below. Of course, even if they do, many/most will not change much, because hyperpartisans tend to have too much emotinally invested in their mindset and too little maturity, emotional strength and sense of responsibility and civic duty to push themselves to think critically and more objectively and to engage in a legitimate search for truth. They are too emotionally attached to their sense of political/ideological identity and related self-righteous sense of moral and intellectual superiority, and are too caught up in the "us vs. them" mindset and behavior -- camaraderie with those on one's "side" and animosity and combativeness toward those on the other "side" -- to engage in a good-faith search for truth or good-faith discussion/debate of issues. So they just seek out and parrot information and opinion that supports the "convenient truths" that support the views they wish to hold for the aforementioned emotional benefits.

Anyway, here are those books I recommend:

http://www.amazon.com/True-Enough-Learning-Post-Fact-Society/dp/0470050101/ref=sr_1_1/185-1297078-0767436?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1245092085&sr=1-1

http://www.amazon.com/SPIN-FREE-ECONOMICS-Nariman-Behravesh/dp/007154903X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1245090872&sr=1-1

a lot of those workers are out of work precisely BECAUSE the last Fed chair didn't pay attention to the inflation he was causing.

but hey, if unsustainable debt loads by the american consumer got us here I am sure that unsustainable debt loads by the public sector will get us out!

the havoc wrought by a currency crisis is way worse than any brought on by worrying about deficits.

Brooks, have you been taking logic lessons from Republicans? Your continued attempts to polarize (and therefore marginalize) any opposing viewpoints makes YOU read like a stalker.

But keep up with the attempted character assassination, you're fun!

Make a point. Back it up with fact rather than conjecture. And then -- shut up.

Republicans are wrong. Get over it, Brooks.

Welcome back, Dr. Baker! I hope you had a relaxing vacation.

Thanks for sorting out the particulars and helping to educate an unskilled laborer like me on the current economic recession and its causes. I've been following your commentary since Nov. '08 after the hysteria of the presidential election, and have read most of 1980-present and have skimmed your book on Social Security and The Conservative Nanny State. Undoubtedly I'll be returning to those when time allows.

To Brooks:

Not sure what your problem is. It's obvious that the Washington Post serves the interests of the moneyed establishment. If you can't infer that from their corporate cheerleading, and misinterpret what Dr. Baker is conveying, that's your deficiency, not Dr. Baker's.

As far as me being a hyperpartisan, I'll readily admit that I'm a stalwart defender of those struggling to secure human rights, their right to freedom of expression, their right to education, their right to meaningful employment, and their right to satisfactory health care.

Brooks,

Thanks for your responses. At least you're not getting personal.

To Unsympathetic:

Needless to say (at least to a reasonably objective person), your criticism of my comments is thick with irony. Dean makes partisan accusations, and I ask him to clarify and to substantiate his charges, and you accuse me of seeking only to polarize, and you do so with an overtly hyperpartisan tone ("Brooks, have you been taking logic lessons from Republicans?"). You then proceed to engage in name-calling, tell me to "make a point" (apparently you don't think that asking Dean to clarify and substantiate his point has any place on Beat the Press), and tell me to then "shut up." I guess that's par for the hyperpartisan course. Reflexively circling the wagons and attacking anyone challenging your side's talking points with any response you can come up with, no matter how silly or lame, is the hyperpartisan m.o., particularly on mostly echo chamber blogs such as this one.

To PMA:

Re:
It's obvious that the Washington Post serves the interests of the moneyed establishment.

Just so I fully understand your charge,
(1) Are you saying that all (or at least nearly all) the reporters and editors of the Post are deliberately deceiving their readers to serve the agenda of rich people?
(2) If so, are you saying the same for the New York Times and USA Today?
(3) Who else?
(4) What about think tanks that are considered progressive, centrist, or non-partisan -- any of them in on this evil conspiracy to serve the rich at everyone else's expense?

As for hyperpartisanship, you are defining the term incorrectly, or at least very differently from how I use it (and how I think it would generally be thought of), and thus your pride is mistaken to the point of sounding downright silly. Fortunately, I've written on this in the past and can provide you the clarification below.

You can believe strongly in all the values and policy positions and priorities you listed, and have an ideology to the left (or to the right for others) of center (even substantially so) without being a hyperpartisan. What distinguishes the hyperpartisan is that he is so consumed with advancing some such cause (ideology, party, candidate, issue position(s), etc.), and/or his sense of identity and self-esteem is so tied to it, that one or more (and usually all) of the following apply to him.

1) He has no reasonable sense of objectivity.

2) He has (or at least exhibits) no reasonable degree of willingness or ability to make a good-faith effort to search for "facts" and "truth" and let the chips fall where they may, instead either accepting and maintaining as "facts" and "truth" (without much research or critical thinking) notions, claims, arguments, etc., that support his deeply held and deeply felt assumptions/conclusions OR doing research but only to support those assumptions/beliefs and without any serious consideration of any findings to the contrary that are incidentally encountered. (He uses research the way a drunk uses a lamppost: For support rather than for illumination.)

3) He does not have the integrity to proactively present or even to acknowledge when presented with weaknesses of his position, argument, etc. even if somehow he can manage to see them as such, because not only does he not wish to consider (for himself) the possibility that he is "wrong" (as opposed to still considering his overall position/argument/candidate/party/etc. to be "right" but not as certainly or as completely so), but his sole communications objective is to advance his cause, and if he thinks that providing a clearer, more thorough, more accurate, more objective, more rational (etc.) argument would not serve this purpose as well as would sticking to some talking points or other propoganda, he will consistently opt for the latter. (This is particularly disturbing when practiced by academics, such as economics bloggers Mark Thoma, Dean Baker and Brad DeLong, who I should add, with the notable exception of Dean Baker, go as far as to delete some comments that legitimately challenge their arguments or those of their dittoheads)

4) When presented with arguments or questions that challenge (or seem to challenge) his assertions, he refuses to engage in good faith, but instead either responds merely with ad hominem (often attacking motive and charging immorality and lack of integrity) and/or by creating the pretense of being responsive and of having good answers or counterarguments by knowingly throwing out -- for as long as it takes and in as much quantity as it takes -- an abundance of diversionary straw men, irrelevancies, non sequiturs, etc. (As a note, of course sometimes these responses are at least partly innocent errors of logic -- many people wouldn't know a non sequitur if it bit them on the ass -- but, based on my experience with a great many such people in the blogosphere and elsewhere, in most cases there is, at least at some point in the exchange, some degree of lack of good faith, with them persisting with such rhetoric despite knowing or at least suspecting that they are not relevant, logical and sensible).

5) In addition to viewing the other "side" of the partisan divide as the enemy, he views anyone presenting him with such arguments and questions -- by which I don't mean just someone who is responding by hurling rhetorical "food" back at him and engaging in a mindless food fight, but also someone who is presenting rather legitimate challenges that call on him to lay out and defend the validity of his argument (the premises and the reasoning/logic) -- as his enemy, and actually seems even more disturbed by the latter, because hyperpartisans of the other "side" can only spark a food fight in which both sides talk past one another, hurling rhetoric over each others' heads without ever really examining the premises and logic of each others' arguments, but someone who is actually seeking such an exploration could, if the hyperpartisan cooperates, end up demonstrating that the premises or the logic are invalid, quite possibly showing an obvious contradiction among the hyperpartisan's own assertions (i.e., clear logical error). I've had a line for many years that applies to such situations, "I can't insist that you agree with me, but I can insist that you agree with yourself". The hyperpartisan avoids like the plague any real, substantive, rational, relevant, mutually responsive, logical discussion/debate, one major reason being that he fears revelation of his disagreeing with himself. Of course, a serious, sober exploration of the validity of his premises (via legitimate fact-checking, collection of relevant, reasonably reliable data, etc.) is another fear of his.

So in many cases, the hyperpartisan is a bit more tolerant on blogs (etc.) of hyperpartisans of the other "side" than he is of the commenter who seeks an exploration and rational discussion/debate of his position/argument/etc. Throwing food and ducking food thrown at him he can handle. Having to actually lay out his argument clearly and discuss/debate it rationally is much more unnerving and scary to him. The person trying to take such an approach with him (e.g., via Socratic method; or merely asking for clarity or for substantiation of someone's assertion) is his worst nightmare, and he will seek to rid his blogging playground of such a person or, short of that, to appeal to other hyperpartisans (on both sides sometimes) to view that person negatively and to dismiss his comments (well, dismiss them if he can't get them to be used as justification for banning that person).

6) He thinks that anyone not on his "side" (and particularly those on the other "side") are stupid, ignorant, evil, hopelessly biased (lol) or all of the above.

It's important to note that another explanation for some of the commenting behavior described above can be merely personal insecurity: someone not feeling secure enough to admit that he was partly or completely wrong about something. In other words, someone who is simply trying to avoid the personal embarrassment he would feel if it were revealed that he had made some bold statement without having really thought it through or applied correct logic or gotten his facts right (etc.), and to whom avoiding such embarrassment is more important than engaging in good faith, will act in a very similar way when challenged, just for personal emotional reasons rather than primarily for the sake of some cause (issue position/candidate/etc.). But my strong sense, based on all too many exchanges with hyperpartisans, is that both factors are present, which I don't consider coincidental; the emotional insecurity that would lead someone to engage in bad faith to avoid this personal embarrassment is probably closely related to the emotional insecurity that leads someone to be a hyperpartisan, given that hyperpartisanship affords one an oversimplified worldview in which he understands all, knows who is clearly good and who is clearly evil, etc.

Such hyperpartisan thinking and behavior makes rational and well-informed discussion/debate of important issues much more difficult and much less likely (and often impossible), and the result is a markedly reduced probability of producing policies that are optimal in practical terms and in terms of reflecting the values and priorities of the people (or in some cases meeting some other standard of principles even if not reflective of these values and priorities, as with constitutional rights), producing instead gridlock (as enormous looming problems fester) or poor "solutions", as well as poisoning the intellectual environment, which is a loss in itself. And in the case of our long-term fiscal imbalance in particular, hyperpartisanship produces pervasive, persistant myths ("feel-good", convenient untruths) and stubborn insistence on "solutions" that are at least highly dubious and/or highly politically implausible (as opposed to pragmatic compromise), resulting in no substantial solution, a worsening of the imbalance, and eventually much greater pain all around than we would have to experience if we worked out a solution sooner.

Given all of the above, being a hyperpartisan is very far from something of which one should be proud.

Get and read "True Enough", the book to which I linked in the comment above. You'll see analysis of plenty of examples of hyperpartisanship and of what it produces.

To Brooks:

I'm not interested in discussing the semantics of hyperpartisanship. I'm interested in discussing problems that afflict those who cannot secure meaningful employment, healthcare, and education/training to secure those things. If you cannot see that the Washington Post (and the NYT, USA Today, NYT) serve the interests of the wealthy establishment, I cannot help you. This has been fully elucidated in many other venues and I'm not interested in detailing it.

As far as believing in my own fallibility, I've had no problem recognizing that ever since I abandoned orthodox Christianity in grade school.

Check out Taleb's Black Swan, or Soros on Soros. Perhaps the ideas presented will allow you to better analyze your unshakable belief in market fundamentalism.

PMA,

Re:
I'm not interested in discussing the semantics of hyperpartisanship.

That's a pretty silly statement. I'm not making a semantic distinction; I'm making a fundamental conceptual distinction. But I guess you'll just think I'm discussing the semantics of "semantics". And if you think that the nature of political discourse -- and in particular the enormous, adverse impact of hyperpartisanship -- is unimportant and not highly relevant to the goal of achieving policies that effectively solve the major problems our nation faces, you're just out to lunch.

I'm glad you answered my question #2, but since you didn't answer the other questions, and chose instead to merely repeat your prior phrasing, which was accusatory by implication without showing the guts to be explicit (and which falsely, evasively and thus lamely implied that I was asking you to "elucidate" and "detail" some tedious explanation rather than just a quick, explicit answer), I'll ask you again:
Just so I fully understand your charge,
(1) Are you saying that all (or at least nearly all) the reporters and editors of the Post are deliberately deceiving their readers to serve the agenda of rich people?
(2) [you already answered]
(3) Who else?
(4) What about think tanks that are considered progressive, centrist, or non-partisan -- any of them in on this evil conspiracy to serve the rich at everyone else's expense?

By the way, evasiveness is part of the m.o. of the hyperpartisan. Some of the tactics I described are tools of evasiveness, designed to create the false appearance of an actual, direct response to a straight-forward question, much like responses one sees from politicians and spokespersons on the Sunday morning talk shows when use deliberately vague language and spin rather than really answer a question directly.

Re:
Check out Taleb's Black Swan, or Soros on Soros. Perhaps the ideas presented will allow you to better analyze your unshakable belief in market fundamentalism.

On what basis do you claim that I have an "unshakable belief in market fundamentalism"? Or is it wrong for me to ask you to provide some basis for an assertion about someone (me, in this case) that you've made -- an attribution of a belief to someone that you then ridicule? So please, tell me, what is your basis for that claim?

Brooks,

Firstly, anyone framing an opposite argument as calling someone or something "evil" has already resorted to a laughable straw man and has ceded their credibility. The more merit an argument actually has - not to confused with wordiness and bleating about the "Socratic method" - the less it would have to resort to such childishness.

Secondly, are all claims of unbalanced treatment of issues by the media "conspiracy theories", or just those you don't like? You are evidently trying to pass yourself as a nonpartisan pragmatist, but I'm afraid you're going to have to grit your teeth and at least try for consistency here if you want to seen that way.

This is just to get started.

Damn it, Brooks, you've nailed us. We are and have been weak-minded fools, but you've convinced us to not read Dean Baker any longer; we see now that he will never respond to your research. Thank you. Your work is done here.

I just don't understand how Dean can claim the story omits who is concerned.
First, some responses to comments:
Brian J: I agree about the general lack of attention to the role of the Bush tax cuts in creating the non-cyclical deficit. However the article says: "Their argument that Obama is spending recklessly, however, is complicated by the fact that the previous GOP administration's tax cuts, borrowing to finance wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and expansion of entitlement benefits remain the chief drivers behind the rising debt. "
Brooks 1:52 am: I think you have made your point that Mr Baker over personifies the Washington Post, which has a variety of views and news. It also owns Salon, and is attacked by right wingers for a liberal bias.
fuller schmidt: Brooks is not promoting conspiracy theories, he is disputing Dean's tendency to assign more maliciousness to the Post than he sees, or as Brooks at 1:02 pm: says: "his persistent accusations of intent, of deliberately misleading people -- "trying to scare people" -- into adopting policies that harm seniors to benefit rich folks" In my experience, there is more ignorance than malevolence in the world, so I tend to not believe Dean's assignment of intent.
Unsympathetic: If a republican says the sun will rise tomorrow, it may still be true.
PMA: Its obvious to you, but not obvious to others. Why do you assume that Brooks has a "unshakable belief in market fundamentalism." when he objects to the idea that "the reporters and editors of the Post are deliberately deceiving their readers to serve the agenda of rich people.". Maybe he just knows some people who write for the Post. Maybe he just wants to discuss the adverse impact of hyperpartisanship.
Sylphhead: There is a basis for progress in your statement.
So lets stick to the article in question.

Mr Baker claimed:
"Who is concerned? The story doesn't tell us. Who says that they are concerned? The story doesn't tell us."

and yet the article specifically answers those questions:
"After enjoying months of towering poll numbers, legislative victories and well-received foreign policy initiatives, the White House has become increasingly concerned that President Obama's spending plans, which would require $9 trillion in government borrowing over the next decade, could become a political liability that defines the 2010 midterm elections."
**** Who? The White House Which person ? Not stated.

"But there is evidence of growing public concern over his fiscal policies. As he traveled Thursday in Green Bay, Wis., Obama was greeted by demonstrators holding signs that said, "No socialism" and "Taxed Enough Yet?" "
**** Who? Demonstrators Which person ? Not stated.

But Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, said, "The second five years is where we're on a completely unsustainable course."
**** Which person ? Kent Conrad.

"Results from a Gallup survey released last week show that although more than six in 10 Americans approve of Obama's overall job performance, fewer than half say they approve of how he is handling the deficit and controlling federal spending"
**** Who? People polled by Gallup Which person ? Not stated.

"Those concerns about spending and deficits are not confined by U.S. borders. Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner traveled to China this month to assure leaders there that "we will cut our deficit and we will eliminate our extraordinary government support that we have put in place to overcome the crisis." Traveling in Germany this month, Obama responded to Chancellor Angela Merkel's concerns that U.S. spending could lead to global inflation and undermine the stability of U.S. debt. "
**** Who? Chinese leaders Which person ? Angela Merkel.

"There's two parts to fiscal reform: cutting and cost controls," Emanuel said. "At the end of the day, you're going to have to look at tax reform as part of the long-term fiscal health of the country. But if you change Medicare, Medicaid and other big drivers of costs, you're going to get enormous savings."
**** Which person ? Rahm Emanuel, Obama's chief of staff
.
I just don't understand how Dean can claim the story omits who is concerned.

sylphhead,

You packed a lot of confusion (or deliberate sleight of hand) into a brief comment, so points for efficiency, whatever that's worth (lol).

Re:
Firstly, anyone framing an opposite argument as calling someone or something "evil" has already resorted to a laughable straw man and has ceded their credibility. The more merit an argument actually has - not to confused with wordiness and bleating about the "Socratic method" - the less it would have to resort to such childishness.

I am obviously challenging Dean (and others who engage in rhetoric similar to his) to be explicit regarding what they are implying. Dean habitually implies that the reporters and editorial boards of major newspapers (New York Times, Washington Post, etc.) and various think tanks/advocacy groups expressing concern about our fiscal imbalance are pursuing a hidden agenda of deliberately deceiving the public to try to scare the public unnecessarily into making unnecessary policy changes that will severely harm the elderly just to further enrich the wealthy. Do you really think it's a stretch to refer to a persistent contention of that sort as a charge of "evil"?? If not, you've got a pretty high bar for evil (lol). Look, as someone who often -- but sensibly and most likely correctly -- points out others' straw men, I know that doing so can be quite appropriate and useful in calling people on B.S., but that doesn't mean it's anything other than silly or disingenuous (or "childish", to borrow your term, but apply it where it fits) for you to slap the label of "straw man" on an argument (mine, in this case) that just isn't a straw man argument.

As for wordiness, that's not simply a function of the quantity of words, as you seem to think, but of quantity of words relative to the amount and quality of thoughts conveyed. I don't think my admittedly very long comment (arguably longer than many consider appropriate for a blog comment) was wordy. YMMV, but preferably on a legitimate basis, which I suspect cannot be said about your opinion. As for my supposed "bleating about the 'Socratic method'", first of all, I guess I need to point out to you the difference between mentioning and bleating about something, but moreover, it seems that you are trying to paint my comment as some sort of pretentious pseudo-intellectualism by pointing to my reference to the Socratic method, which (if I'm correct that such is the intent of that remark of yours) is just a silly, lame rhetorical tactic on your part.

Re:
Secondly, are all claims of unbalanced treatment of issues by the media "conspiracy theories", or just those you don't like?

LOL, this rhetorical question from the guy who just accused me of a straw man argument! hoo boy, that's some comic irony! Good stuff, albeit inadvertent. To answer your silly question, baseless implication, and straw man argument, no, obviously I have not said or implied in any way, nor do I believe that all claims of unbalanced treatment of issues by the media are "conspiracy theories" or even as disingenuous or even as reflecting bias or even as invalid. In fact, to the contrary, anyone paying attention to what I've said on this thread and actually thinking would quite easily that I'm claiming the opposite: that there are indeed hyperpartisan media sources -- including Beat the Press -- that treat issues in an unbalanced way due to bias and/or insincerity driven by ideology and an agenda. Naturally I'm not dismissing my own contention as some silly "conspiracy theory". And clearly I'm addressing hyperpartisan media sources on both sides of the partisan divide (on the right and on the left), and I'll add that even a centrist can be a hyperpartisan (however counterintuitive that may seem to some at first) if what I've described in my prior comment applies to him, and the same could apply to centrist media or centrist advocacy organizations. There can and are hyperpartisan people, media and advocacy organizations at every point on the left-to-right ideological spectrum, and obviously I'm not dismissing claims of related "unbalanced treatment" as just silly "conspiracy theories". I will also add that some unbalanced treatment can result not from hyperpartisanship on the part of the journalists involved, but as a result of their dependence on hyperpartisan sources or skew of sources toward one "side" of an issue or issues generally, which in some cases reflects a lack of journalistic professionalism and/or resources. But that, too, is an area of potentially legitimate criticism (although that is a case one must make), not necessarily "conspiracy theory". So you see, not all claims of imbalanced treatement are silly "conspiracy charges" or even "conspiracy charges" at all, and I certainly have not implied in any way that they were, your silly straw man argument notwithstanding.

Re:
You are evidently trying to pass yourself as a nonpartisan pragmatist, but I'm afraid you're going to have to grit your teeth and at least try for consistency here if you want to seen that way.

Well, I've dismantled and revealed your assertions as somewhere between vacuous and fundamentally confused, so needless to say, you haven't identified any inconsistency on my part at all. As for my "trying to pass [myself] off as a nonpartisan pragmatist", well, yes to the pragmatist part, but on what basis do you claim that I'm characterizing myself as "nonpartisan"? Do you think the opposite of a hyperpartisan is a non-partisan? If so, you either haven't been paying attention or you're not thinking (or not thinking well). One would think that the opposite of a non-partisan is...drumroll please...a partisan. Yet I'm obviously not using the term "partisan", but rather "hyperpartisan", and I've defined the latter quite clearly and distinguished it from someone who is a partisan (the latter being one who believes strongly in an advocates for particular policies, positions, a party, candidate, etc.).

Re:
This is just to get started.

Good thing you left it at that. Seems that everything you say begs for correction, and the correction often takes longer (and is more tedious) than the error.

Andrew,

The comments to which you refer are boilerplate that all governments say at all times. Nixon would also make comments about his commitment to clean government and transparency. No one would run a front page article about the Nixon administration was committed to clean government and transparency.

I assume that the Post distinguishes between boilerplate comments and actual statements of policy. There is nothing presented in this article that remotely resembles the latter.

AndrewDover wrote:

Mr Baker claimed:
"Who is concerned? The story doesn't tell us. Who says that they are concerned? The story doesn't tell us."
and yet the article specifically answers those questions:
"After enjoying months of towering poll numbers, legislative victories and well-received foreign policy initiatives, the White House has become increasingly concerned that President Obama's spending plans, which would require $9 trillion in government borrowing over the next decade, could become a political liability that defines the 2010 midterm elections."
**** Who? The White House Which person ? Not stated.

**** End of excerpt ******

This seems to me prove Dean's point. Who at "the White House" is expressing concern to WaPo about Obama's policies? Obviously it's not Obama himself. So who is it, and why would are they expressing such politically hot criticism of the policies of their boss anonymously to WaPo? If their concerns are well founded, why not resign and blow the whistle, as many did in the Bush administration?

I love Fuller Schmidt's reply to Brooks at 9:54. Right to the point, like Dean himself, and unlike Brooks.

Meaning and the evaluation of truth does not occur merely at the level of symbols on a page, but in the presumptions contained within and the choice of certain words and directions of argument as opposed to other obvious choices, including the choice of how long to make a response. Accusations often reflect more about the accuser than the accused; since none of us is "perfect" accusations of self-righteousness are particularly likely to reveal the self-righteousness of the accuser.

Dr. Baker expertly deconstructs commercial media accounts in diverse outlets on a daily basis, and includes links, relevant facts, and relevant observations. This is incredibly valuable! One need only go through the archives and add them up for yourself. I recently discovered that he is the favorite econoblogger of one of my friends too.

Our commercial "mainstream" media depends on considerable income from "advertisers" who generally represent large corporate capitalist interests and their government lackeys. The way this works is very well illuminated by the now aged and classic book "Manufacturing Consent," but similar observations go back for millenia. You would have to explain to me how the means of support for media would not be expected to produce some kind of systemic bias, no "conspiracy" required.

Charles,

Boy, for someone apparently intending to give me a lesson in conciseness, you sure do waste a lot of words on blathering spin as an apologist for Dean, who still will not -- despite the benefit for his readers and his cause that one would think he would see in it -- simply respond per my suggestion/request and simply provide a list of the media sources (and ideally also liberal, centrist and non-partisan think tanks and advocacy groups) whose journalists are, as he opportunistically alleges (i.e., after one of them contradicts his points), deliberately deceiving their audiences, "trying to scare people" into adopting evil policies that harm needy seniors to further enrich the wealthy.

Look, obviously it is plausible that dependence on ad revenue can at least plausibly introduce some bias or even have overt influence with some media organizations on what they cover and how, and the same can be said for subscribers (just one glaring example that comes to mind: Time magazine not having the journalistic integrity to make Osama bin Laden "Person of the Year" in 2001 because they lost subscribers after naming Khomeini in 1979 and rightly guessed that naming bin Laden would lose a lot of subsribers) and for any other revenue stream. But you are conveniently conflating two types of charges that are clearly distinct: yet again, as I've pointed out repeatedly even on this thread alone, Dean is not just claiming "some kind of systematic bias", but rather makes a habit of charging the journalists (reporters as well as editors) of at least the Washington Post, New York Times, and USA Today (and that's just lately) of a consistent, deliberate practice of gross deception to unnecessarily "scare" their audience in pursuit of a policy agenda. If you can't see that fundamental distinction, well, I don't know what to tell you (and you wouldn't be worth my spending time to try to engage rationally), and if you are just pretending not to see and understand that distinction, I suggest you start engaging in good faith.

Oh, and re:
Accusations often reflect more about the accuser than the accused; since none of us is "perfect" accusations of self-righteousness are particularly likely to reveal the self-righteousness of the accuser.

That argumentation (to use the term quite loosely) is unclear at best and nonsensical at worst. Some people are indeed quite self-righteous, believing themselves to be morally superior, often while ironically blind to some apparent moral deficiency (or at least a substantial probability thereof), and often this self-righteousness can be discerned from observation and interaction. So your rule of thumb statement is just one of those meaningless throw-away lines that people use in lieu of any substantive, relevant argument/counter-argument in order to create the illusion of some sort of insight/wisdom and to launch a personal attack. Try to come up with something real next time (unless of course your only objective is to say something that the hyperpartisan crowd will like, in which case, mission accomplished just by virtue of attacking someone challenging some aspect of their/your "side", but that's a pretty low bar).

To Charles:
I claimed the article did state explicitly who expressed concern about the deficts.

Didn't you read the article ?

The article quoted Rahm Emanuel and Timothy F. Geithner.

"Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner traveled to China this month to assure leaders there that "we will cut our deficit and we will eliminate our extraordinary government support that we have put in place to overcome the crisis."

Traveling in Germany this month, Obama responded to Chancellor Angela Merkel's concerns that U.S. spending could lead to global inflation and undermine the stability of U.S. debt.

Rahm Emanuel , Obama's chief of staff, said that a quick economic recovery would have the single biggest effect on the grim budget forecasts and that the administration's top priority will be "getting America's fiscal house in order" once Congress finishes work on health-care and energy reform legislation.

"There's two parts to fiscal reform: cutting and cost controls," Emanuel said. "At the end of the day, you're going to have to look at tax reform as part of the long-term fiscal health of the country.

Sure not all paragraphs named people. It may be that they don't mean it per per Dean's comment,
but two named and quoted people refutes a claim that "The story doesn't tell us."(who).