• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Real Bias in the Media: Case Study, Dishonesty at a new level.

obvious Child

obvious Child

Equal Opportunity Hater
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 8, 2008
Messages
19,883
Reaction score
5,120
Location
0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
The Wall Street Journal released this article on their website:

The Obama Stimulus Impact? Zero

John F. Cogan and John B. Taylor: The Obama Stimulus Impact? Zero - WSJ.com

Please read it before replying.

Cogan and Taylor are indeed correct in their argument that states reduced their borrowing and spending and replaced them with Federal dollars, resulting in a total aggregate demand not materially exceeding prior periods. However, in their exceedingly biased view, they choose to present this as proof that the stimulus has zero effect.

This argument to those who aren't 100% totally retarded is functionally the height of dishonesty. First, states cannot for the most part outside of creative accounting deficit spend like the Federal government does. Therefore, the states would have cut their own state and local spending dollars and borrowing independent of federal transfers. If the stimulus had not taken place, there would have not been substitute dollars to replace the reduction in total aggregate demand. Therefore, the net aggregate demand would have dropped by total reductions in state and local spending. And as any educated person knows, as demand declines overall, GDP declines as well.

What the stimulus did, as as Cogan and Taylor point out, was to allow states to functionally keep their spending at the same level, cutting back state and local borrowing/spending and replacing them with Federal borrowing and spending to immaterially increase net aggregate demand. States basically took out buckets of state money (they often didn't even have in the first place) and replaced them with buckets of real federal money.

The stimulus basically kept aggregate demand at the same level abet with a slight immaterial increase in total demand. But Cogen and Taylor have the dishonest gall to say that the stimulus therefore had zero impact when it prevented aggregate demand from significantly falling. That's is definitely not zero impact.
 
Yeah the amount of bias is overwhelming as most of us understand. This is a very article to show the bias. I think as viewers, we all just need to realize this and take everything with a grain of salt as opposed to launching movements to change the media. If what we want is an honest news company, then someone should create one and the viewer market will respond. PBS is probably the closest to this and yet they get no ratings. Watch PBS if that's what you want.
 
I can't read it because I don't subscribe to the WSJ.
 
obvious Child said:
The Wall Street Journal released this article on their website:

The Obama Stimulus Impact? Zero

John F. Cogan and John B. Taylor: The Obama Stimulus Impact? Zero - WSJ.com

Please read it before replying.

Cogan and Taylor are indeed correct in their argument that states reduced their borrowing and spending and replaced them with Federal dollars, resulting in a total aggregate demand not materially exceeding prior periods. However, in their exceedingly biased view, they choose to present this as proof that the stimulus has zero effect.

This argument to those who aren't 100% totally retarded is functionally the height of dishonesty. First, states cannot for the most part outside of creative accounting deficit spend like the Federal government does. Therefore, the states would have cut their own state and local spending dollars and borrowing independent of federal transfers. If the stimulus had not taken place, there would have not been substitute dollars to replace the reduction in total aggregate demand. Therefore, the net aggregate demand would have dropped by total reductions in state and local spending. And as any educated person knows, as demand declines overall, GDP declines as well.

What the stimulus did, as as Cogan and Taylor point out, was to allow states to functionally keep their spending at the same level, cutting back state and local borrowing/spending and replacing them with Federal borrowing and spending to immaterially increase net aggregate demand. States basically took out buckets of state money (they often didn't even have in the first place) and replaced them with buckets of real federal money.

The stimulus basically kept aggregate demand at the same level abet with a slight immaterial increase in total demand. But Cogen and Taylor have the dishonest gall to say that the stimulus therefore had zero impact when it prevented aggregate demand from significantly falling. That's is definitely not zero impact.
Click to expand...

Did you notice it was on the OPINION page? Therefore, "bias" should not be much of a surprise.
 
Harshaw said:
Did you notice it was on the OPINION page? Therefore, "bias" should not be much of a surprise.
Click to expand...

That is what 90 % of people crying bias use though. FOX is biased cuz Beck said this. MSNBC is biased because Olberman said that. Morning TV is biased cuz the view picked on republicans. CBS is biased cuz Letterman made fun of Obama.

The other 10 % is paranoid rantings.
 
Yeah, but this is Real Bias. Didn't you read the title of the thread?
 
Redress said:
That is what 90 % of people crying bias use though. FOX is biased cuz Beck said this. MSNBC is biased because Olberman said that. Morning TV is biased cuz the view picked on republicans. CBS is biased cuz Letterman made fun of Obama.

The other 10 % is paranoid rantings.
Click to expand...

It's different with me. There's what I see as "acceptable" or "expected" bias, which is pundits and opinion people taking sides. That's not a big deal. The political bias I take issue with, is when it rears it's ugly head in the news media. I think the American people deserve the straight scoop when it comes to the hard news, along with an even balance of different stories. They deserve to be given the facts about what's happening in the world, without it being skewed in any political direction or inundated with personal commentary. That's what opinion shows are for.

I will still call out a lie if I hear it, but you won't see me getting real bent out of shape over liberal bias unless its within the hard news or it's displayed in an inappropriate forum.
 
obvious Child said:
The Wall Street Journal released this article on their website:

The Obama Stimulus Impact? Zero

John F. Cogan and John B. Taylor: The Obama Stimulus Impact? Zero - WSJ.com

Please read it before replying.

Cogan and Taylor are indeed correct in their argument that states reduced their borrowing and spending and replaced them with Federal dollars, resulting in a total aggregate demand not materially exceeding prior periods. However, in their exceedingly biased view, they choose to present this as proof that the stimulus has zero effect.

This argument to those who aren't 100% totally retarded is functionally the height of dishonesty. First, states cannot for the most part outside of creative accounting deficit spend like the Federal government does. Therefore, the states would have cut their own state and local spending dollars and borrowing independent of federal transfers. If the stimulus had not taken place, there would have not been substitute dollars to replace the reduction in total aggregate demand. Therefore, the net aggregate demand would have dropped by total reductions in state and local spending. And as any educated person knows, as demand declines overall, GDP declines as well.

What the stimulus did, as as Cogan and Taylor point out, was to allow states to functionally keep their spending at the same level, cutting back state and local borrowing/spending and replacing them with Federal borrowing and spending to immaterially increase net aggregate demand. States basically took out buckets of state money (they often didn't even have in the first place) and replaced them with buckets of real federal money.

The stimulus basically kept aggregate demand at the same level abet with a slight immaterial increase in total demand. But Cogen and Taylor have the dishonest gall to say that the stimulus therefore had zero impact when it prevented aggregate demand from significantly falling. That's is definitely not zero impact.
Click to expand...

And this is an inefficient way to transfer money. If the Feds didn't tax so much, then states could tax more and wouldn't need federal dollars. Money is further lost when it goes through the hands of the fed and then to the state. Ridiculous way to handle revenue.
 
obvious Child said:
The Wall Street Journal released this article on their website:
Click to expand...

It's an OPINION PIECE that has been/was already thoroughly debunked by the facts... When you call it an 'article', you imply it's news, with facts and such.
 
obvious Child said:
WSJ's opinion section is total ****. I like how the front page shows economic recovery yet their opinion is all gloom and doom.
Click to expand...

What I find hilarious is that according to you, the WSJ opinion section is total "****" because it's "doom and gloom" but you have NO problems with their front page, which shows economic recovery.

Bias, anyone?
 
dontworrybehappy said:
What I find hilarious is that according to you, the WSJ opinion section is total "****" because it's "doom and gloom" but you have NO problems with their front page, which shows economic recovery.

Bias, anyone?
Click to expand...

Because their front page represents actual data. Unlike their opinions. See my thread about the WJS's piss opinion where their own data refutes their hypothesis. Their front page provides hard, objective earnings reports, employment data and spending. Their opinions do not. Basically, their opinions are rejecting the objective data their own paper is reporting. That's hilarious.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom