Why does the media cover only one side of the budget debate?

[Craig234]

We're used to the charge of bias when the media doens't give 'full coverage' to the right-wing side on an issue - and that's not often in question as a result, as the right, who are far better resourced to have thousands of on-call experts on everything available as guests and commentators are always represented on any 'both sides discussion panels', usually 'far right and center' being the 'two sides' - but what about this case:

We have seen widespread media coverage of the fact that Paul Ryan has again put out a 'spending plan' (not a budget, really) - with his marketing spin, and constant comments that he's showing 'bravery' by 'daring to suggest cutting medicare and other benefits for people'.

But where's the other side? The progressives in Congress have again released their spending plan - and it's gotten no media coverage.

One commentator said he checked and found there had been one story on it.

Why is that lack of coverage ok, while there would be a big outcry if the right had that happen?

How is 'public debate' working, when only one side is publicized?

Link to the issue:

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/03/29-9

Link to the Progressives' policy:

http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=81&sectiontree=5,81

Last year Republican Rep. Paul Ryan presented a budget plan that was, according to one analysis, full of "dubious assertions, questionable assumptions and fishy figures." But Ryan's brand of budget austerity makes the media swoon–hence we saw coverage (FAIR Media Advisory, 4/12/11) of Ryan's "piercing blue eyes" that dubbed him "a PowerPoint fanatic with an almost unsettling fluency in the fine print of massive budget documents."

Ryan's budget was never going to be adopted, but its release was widely covered across the corporate media. He was given credit for presenting a plan to reduce government deficits, even though his plan didn't really do much of that.

At the same time, the Congressional Progressive Caucus released its People's Budget, which raised taxes on the wealthy, slashed military spending, enacted a public option in healthcare and a Wall Street speculation tax–and unlike Ryan's plan, actually balanced the budget. It got almost no media attention...

A year later, we're seeing the very same thing...

According to my search of the Nexis news database, [the progressive budget has] exactly one article, by Bay Area News Group reporter Josh Richman (3/26/12).

...it presents the debate in a way that is almost unheard of in the rest of the press: "Two vastly different visions of how the government should spend its money were introduced in Congress this past week."

Richman writes that "most of the national buzz" went to the Ryan plan–then goes on to describe the Progressive Caucus budget clearly:

"It not only would end the Bush-era tax cuts, but also create new tax brackets for millionaires and billionaires in keeping with the "Buffett rule." Named after multibillionaire Warren Buffett–who's pushing the agenda–the rule posits that the nation's richest shouldn't pay a lower percentage of income in taxes than less-affluent Americans. It ends what critics call "corporate welfare" for fossil-fuel industries, includes public funding of election campaigns and provides more aid to homeowners facing foreclosure."

Where are the concerns for 'media bias' when it's the left not getting almost any coverage?

It's certainly going to influence public opinion in favor of the Ryan plan when he's the only alternative and plan presented to people.

 

[Lithium381]

When the left does something wrong or undesirable, it's swept under the rug as if it doesn't exist . . . if the right does something "wrong" it's plastered everywhere and given a negative spin . .

 

[Moonbeam]

When the left does something wrong or undesirable, it's swept under the rug as if it doesn't exist . . . if the right does something "wrong" it's plastered everywhere and given a negative spin . .

Examples?

 

[EagleKeeper]

The MSM ignores Obama and his budget?

Have not heard that before.

 

[cubby1223]

Why does the Senate not try to pass the "progressive" budget?

 

[Fern]

Most of the media pimping I've heard about Ryan's budget is criticism.

But I haven't be able to see much news lately (tax busy season etc.)

MSNBC likes to bring up the Ryan budget to bash it and criticize the Repub party. Maybe they don't want to bash the Progressive budget.

Maybe the whole idea of the 'budget' is a bit sensitive for all non-Fox channels since Reid and the Senate hasn't been able to pass one about 3 yrs?

I just recently heard Senate voted on Obama's budget and it didn't even get one vote for it. Is that true?

Doesn't look like the Progressive budget has been scored by the CBO. If not, why talk about it? If they can't be bothered to get it scored why should anybody be bothered with it? Heck, we all know it's zero chance of being passed.

Fern

 

[Fern]

BTW: The author's assertion that only one article has been published is wrong

Try this: http://www.epi.org/publication/wp293-cpc-budget-for-all-2013/

It's a fairly long article and goes into detail.

Fern

 

[FoBoT]

I just recently heard Senate voted on Obama's budget and it didn't even get one vote for it. Is that true?

i need to search for some story, but i thought i read that the Obama budget was rejected 0-97 in the Senate and 0-414 in the House

there is clearly a tactic why , if that is true, they did that, it wasn't an accident

 

[Jhhnn]

Why? Because the people who run the media are millionaires & billionaires. If the public never sees the alternatives to the Ryan flimflam, it's more likely to form the basis of future budgets, and their side wins again in the ongoing class warfare waged from the top down.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

The MSM ignores Obama and his budget?

Have not heard that before.

In his self imposed ideological isolation Craig believes hes the other side of the coin when hes really the thin edge. To the Dems he's handy to have around at election time but otherwise his ideas are as welcome as a case of the clap.

 

[Jhhnn]

In his self imposed ideological isolation Craig believes hes the other side of the coin when hes really the thin edge. To the Dems he's handy to have around at election time but otherwise his ideas are as welcome as a case of the clap.

When you have no argument, attack the messenger.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

When you have no argument, attack the messenger.

The argument being painfully obvious should be unnecessary but if you need it spelled out I can oblige.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Examples?

Hey M!

I have a problem. There is a person on this forum claims to want the best for the people but his faith is entirely wrapped up in an effective religion where government is the source of all good. Without it we are lost.

Then there is this other fellow who demonstrates that he has concern for people but understands that real reform comes from the inside and that if that can be brought out then good things happen. It cannot be court ordered.

Which is the Progressive?

 

[Jhhnn]

The argument being painfully obvious should be unnecessary but if you need it spelled out I can oblige.

Then do so- explain why the Ryan budget gets the splashy headlines & the Progressive Congressional Caucus budget gets zero play.

 

[Double Trouble]

The progressive "plan" can be summed up as follows: massive tax increase. The CBO has not even bothered to look at it, I'm sure if they did we'd see significantly different numbers than those presented by the socialist wing ...errr... progressive caucus. There's absolutely no point in even bringing it up for debate, it's worthless.

Ryan's plan is generally only brought up to be bashed by most of the media. Only Fox of course laps it up and sings it's praises.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Then do so- explain why the Ryan budget gets the splashy headlines & the Progressive Congressional Caucus budget gets zero play.

Because the two sides of the coin are Obama and the main stream Dems and the Reps. All other groups have no chance whatsoever to wield power. The Progressives are the Democratic equivalent of the anti-abortionist Republicans. Both can be counted on to vote for their respective parties while being marginalized by the majority. There is no need to pay any attention to either group whatsoever because they can be counted on to be faithful voters since being insignificant is better than being less than nothing. They sell themselves cheap and the only coin the mainstream are interested has already been donated- that is the vote. So in the end there is no interest in that which is never going to be seriously considered by their own party. You might as well ask why the Balloon Animal Faction if there were one wasn't being taken seriously. I've repeatedly said that the two party system does not need Progressives and that they have absolutely no chance to be heard because those on whom they depend regard them as things to be used, which I think is a shame. But alas, that is precisely what is asked for by the Progressives. They may not want it, but they ask for it nonetheless.

Reality sucks.

 

[Jhhnn]

Because the two sides of the coin are Obama and the main stream Dems and the Reps. All other groups have no chance whatsoever to wield power. The Progressives are the Democratic equivalent of the anti-abortionist Republicans. Both can be counted on to vote for their respective parties while being marginalized by the majority. There is no need to pay any attention to either group whatsoever because they can be counted on to be faithful voters since being insignificant is better than being less than nothing. They sell themselves cheap and the only coin the mainstream are interested has already been donated- that is the vote. So in the end there is no interest in that which is never going to be seriously considered by their own party. You might as well ask why the Balloon Animal Faction if there were one wasn't being taken seriously. I've repeatedly said that the two party system does not need Progressives and that they have absolutely no chance to be heard because those on whom they depend regard them as things to be used, which I think is a shame. But alas, that is precisely what is asked for by the Progressives. They may not want it, but they ask for it nonetheless.

Reality sucks.

Had you compared progressive Dems to Tea Party Repubs, you'd have a valid point. Tea Party Repubs have had a very noticeable effect on their party's economic policy, and the right to lifers really haven't, largely because they fighting against established law & because that's not their single issue.

If Ryan's budget, the darling of the Tea Party & the uber-wealthy, gets so much play, why does their counterpoint on the other side get virtually nothing in the mainstream media, even when they propose measures that the public has been shown to favor overwhelmingly, like raising taxes on the wealthy?

As for your attribution wrt Obama, he's the one who introduced the idea of the Volcker rule, after all, so it would seem you're a little off-base there...

If there's really some reason to think that the reasons aren't what I've outlined earlier, that those who control the Media are acting in their own self interest, limiting the debate via non-coverage, you've yet to offer any up...

 

[Double Trouble]

If Ryan's budget, the darling of the Tea Party & the uber-wealthy, gets so much play, why does their counterpoint on the other side get virtually nothing in the mainstream media, even when they propose measures that the public has been shown to favor overwhelmingly, like raising taxes on the wealthy?

Unless I'm mistaken, the Ryan plan was actually passed by the house. The "progressive tax raising bill" hasn't been passed by anybody. Nobody cares because it is irrelevant. It's no different than you or I proposing some plan -- it has no bearing on reality.

Also, as Hayabusa pointed out, even if the progressive caucus tax plan were brought to a vote, in addition to the republicans voting against it, I doubt you'd get very many democrats voting for it either. In other words, the mainstream democrats treat the progressive caucus and their tax raising plan like that crazy uncle we have in the family that nobody wants to really talk about. That's why there's been no discussion about the plan, neither the gop nor the mainstream democrats want any part of it.

 

[Craig234]

BTW: The author's assertion that only one article has been published is wrong

Try this: http://www.epi.org/publication/wp293-cpc-budget-for-all-2013/

It's a fairly long article and goes into detail.

Fern

The author said that a Nexis search found only one article published.

You linked to a *web* piece. What newspaper or tv show was it in?

He wasn't referring to the internet, it seems to me, but print/tv news media.

If an article was missed - which isn't clear - the point is extremely low coverage.

 

[Craig234]

The MSM ignores Obama and his budget?

Have not heard that before.

This is the budget plan of the progressive caucus. Not the White House or Obama. It's the counterpart proposal to the right's budget plan from the left.

The President puts out his draft budget, which is an actual budget; the right and left can put out their budget plans for public debate (they're not required to but they did).

 

[Craig234]

i need to search for some story, but i thought i read that the Obama budget was rejected 0-97 in the Senate and 0-414 in the House

there is clearly a tactic why , if that is true, they did that, it wasn't an accident

The President's budget is always modified; it's the starting point.

I don't know the history of doing a voice vote but it sounds like a stunt.

 

[Double Trouble]

the point is extremely low coverage.

Why would there be more coverage for something that a fringe group within the democratic party proposes, when that proposal doesn't even have support within the rest of the democratic party? I don't think it's been formally introduced as a bill, it hasn't been voted on, the CBO hasn't calculated it out and it has no chance of even getting out of committee if it were introduced.

You can view that as some vast conspiracy to keep it under wraps, or you can take the more mainstream view that it's not being reported on because it's not relevant or news worthy.

 

[Moonbeam]

Hey M!

I have a problem. There is a person on this forum claims to want the best for the people but his faith is entirely wrapped up in an effective religion where government is the source of all good. Without it we are lost.

Then there is this other fellow who demonstrates that he has concern for people but understands that real reform comes from the inside and that if that can be brought out then good things happen. It cannot be court ordered.

Which is the Progressive?

The progressive, in my opinion, is somebody who, understanding that the only person one can save is himself, proceeds to do so.. I believe that somebody who has done that will know how to best help others do the same thing. I have no idea what that would look like but I think we are a reflection of the environment we grow up in. I would therefore say that anything the government can do via a conscious vote of the people to affect their safety and happiness, and all that's in the preamble, will want a government to reflect what they feel are positive and healthy values, and if they do that and the values are actually sound, then government will make better people, people who have less distance to travel to help themselves. We and the world are reflections of each other. The better we are the better the world is and the better the world is the better we are.

The problem is that humanity is asleep and does not want to awaken. So you have to start with the fact that the situation is hopeless and somehow find a way to love. One can give but one can never have anything. To ask or demand it be otherwise leads to insanity in my opinion. There is only love and that's it.

 

[Jhhnn]

Why would there be more coverage for something that a fringe group within the democratic party proposes, when that proposal doesn't even have support within the rest of the democratic party? I don't think it's been formally introduced as a bill, it hasn't been voted on, the CBO hasn't calculated it out and it has no chance of even getting out of committee if it were introduced.

You can view that as some vast conspiracy to keep it under wraps, or you can take the more mainstream view that it's not being reported on because it's not relevant or news worthy.

There are more members in the progressive Caucus than the Tea Party Caucus...

The "mainstream view"? How can there be a mainstream view when the mainstream doesn't even know it exists, thanks to non-coverage by the Media? Or is this just another manifestation of the right wing echo chamber?

 

[Anarchist420]

Ryan can get a CDI movie and shove it up his ass if he wants an award for proposing cutting benefits for people since he actually wants to continue excessively taxing/spending.

Dr. Ron Paul's Restore America Now plan is a counter proposal to not only the House Progressive Caucus's budget, but also to Ryan's bloated budget.