Name: 23 Headlines Obscure Biden's Lies About Cutting Social Security - FAIR
Brand: fair.org
SKU: fair-org-17
Availability: OnlineOnly

critic

23 Headlines Obscure Biden's Lies About Cutting Social Security - FAIR

preview

&nbsp;Here’s something many Americans would be very interested to know: Is a leading candidate in the Democratic primary a liar? And since a of Americans have cuts to Social Security, the country’s , Democratic voters in particular might be interested to know if a President Joe Biden would try to cut Social Security.Former Vice President Biden has to Social Security for , and is on the record for saying things like:When I argued that we should freeze federal spending, I meant Social Security as well. I meant Medicare and Medicaid. I meant veterans’ benefits. I meant every single solitary thing in the government. And I not only tried it once, I tried it twice, I tried it a third time, and I tried it a fourth time.When Biden was in 2007, he declared his willingness to oppose the US public when he boasted that he would ignore his advisers’ advice not to “touch that third rail,” and even released a plan to under the guise of .Joe Biden (Brookings Institution, ): “Now, we need to do something about Social Security and Medicare. That’s the only way you can find room to pay for it…. So we need a pro-growth, progressive tax code that…raises enough revenue to make sure that the Social Security and Medicare can stay, it still needs adjustments, but can stay.”So when Bernie Sanders’ campaign released a of Joe Biden’s statements reiterating his desire to cut Social Security, a program that benefited 64 million Americans in 2019, and is the for most elderly Americans, shouldn’t media headlines reflect this? And if many of these outlets openly acknowledge that Biden’s claim that the video was “doctored” isn’t true, don’t they have a journalistic obligation not to launder the Biden campaign’s false talking points?Headlines typically draw in readers or viewers by including the most relevant and interesting information. When only read past the headlines, that means a good majority of readers have their worldviews shaped by the short bits of stories editors choose to highlight.Yet the headlines from 23 different media outlets covering Sanders’ critique of Biden’s Social Security record obscured crucial facts by making no mention of surely pertinent information. These headlines primarily misled readers in three ways.The first type features the unhelpful FAIR has , where the most pertinent information is not that a leading presidential candidate supports cutting a popular and successful social program, but about which campaign strategies candidates are employing in the presidential primaries:Headlines like the Washington Post’s “Bernie Sanders Hits Joe Biden on Social Security as the Presidential Contest Grows More Heated” and CNN’s “Sanders Attacks Biden’s Record on Social Security as Primary Race Heats Up Ahead of Iowa” do not explain what Biden’s record on Social Security is, nor what Sanders’ critique of that record is.The second variety of headlines displays corporate media’s tendency towards , treating political opponents as necessarily having equal legitimacy in a political conflict.Headlines like the New York Times’ “Biden and Sanders Clash Over Social Security” and the Wall Street Journal’s “Biden and Sanders Fight Over Social Security” not only fail to explain why Sanders and Biden are in a dispute over Social Security, but also give no clue to their audiences about who has the facts on their side.If the Times’ lead paragraph mentions that Biden “accused Senator Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign of distorting his record on Social Security, claiming without evidence that Mr. Sanders’s team was promoting a ‘doctored’ video, a loaded word in an era of disinformation,” why not mention the fact that Biden offered no evidence in the headline? The Journal’s treatment of Biden’s claim was even worse than the Times’, treating statements from the Biden and Sanders campaign as a “he said she said” story by presenting the Biden campaign’s accusatory statements and the Sanders campaign’s rebuttals with no indication of whether one side had greater evidence.The third and most common variety of headline is the worst because it reverses reality:Headlines like Politico’s “Biden Charges Sanders Camp ‘Doctored Video’ to Attack Him” and CBS’s “Biden Accuses Sanders Campaign of Sharing ‘Doctored’ Video of Him Attacking Social Security” make it seem as if Sanders is the one lying by creating a fabricated video. This is especially journalistic malpractice when these very outlets that the “video in question” of Biden’s 2018 to the Brookings Institution think tank “was not doctored by Sanders,” and that “despite Biden’s repeated use of the words ‘doctored’ and ‘fake,’ the video is neither of those things.”Many of these articles uncritically cite Politifact’s obtuse attempt () to critique the Sanders campaign’s video, which declared that Sanders’ statement in a campaign newsletter that “in 2018, Biden lauded Paul Ryan for proposing cuts to Social Security and Medicare” was false because Biden’s statements were taken out of context. Politifact highlighted Biden’s statements that “Social Security and Medicare can stay,” but failed to highlight his very next words, saying of Social Security/Medicare, “It still needs adjustments.”What are those “adjustments”? FAIR ( ) has noted that euphemisms like “solution” and “adjustments” are frequently used to describe what are more accurately called cuts to Social Security. As Ryan Grim noted on Twitter (),”‘Adjustment,’ in Washington, is a euphemism for ‘cuts.’ That’s just a basic fact of congressional lingo that can’t be disputed.” Particularly when Biden says of the retirement programs, “It still needs adjustment, but can stay,” it’s hard to see how you can read it other than as a call to “save” the programs by cutting them.Ryan Grim (Intercept, ): “When the program is popular, ‘adjustment’ is a Washington euphemism for cuts.”Grim’s factcheck in the Intercept () of Politifact’s factcheck is far more competent, because it doesn’t confine itself solely to Biden’s remarks in a single speech, but rather situates those remarks within Biden’s 40-year history of advocating cuts to Social Security, and also decodes common centrist euphemisms for cutting Social Security. If Biden is now claiming that he opposes cuts to Social Security, it is certainly important to note that this would be a reversal of his long-held position (and how it undermines Biden’s credibility).It’s important for media outlets to question the credibility of presidential candidates, especially with contenders like Biden, who has a history of serial lying on the campaign trail about his ideology, his or making ridiculous statements like “” of anyone running for the presidency, or misrepresenting his opponents’ proposals by claiming that are trying to “scrap Obamacare” and create a “hiatus” in coverage for up to three years.Of course, corporate media have long supported cuts to Social Security (FAIR.org, , , ; Extra!, , ), and have promoted Biden’s neoliberal ideology by disingenuously lauding centrist candidates like him as “pragmatic” (FAIR.org, , , , , , ). So perhaps one shouldn’t expect these outlets to run headlines like “Joe Biden Falsely Claims that Bernie Sanders Is Spreading a ‘Doctored Video’” or “Joe Biden Is Doctoring His Record of Supporting Cuts to Social Security.”FAIR’s work is sustained by our generous contributors, who allow us to remain independent. today to be a part of this important mission.You can also support FAIR on Patreon! Click the button below!If you want the truth from media–“Who you gonna call” well it ain’t the corporate media.“Doctored” “Doctored”Give me the newsI got a bad case of covering for youWorse, in that 2018 video Biden specifically mentions means testing Social Security.That’s a way of cutting Social Security over time.And Politifact has a history of lying about Social Security and Medicare, so they’re not credible.Don’t have the patience to know how they justify the term ‘doctored’ but it would be normal to ‘edit’ a video for a legitimate campaign ad.I read the Intercept article and it was a typical Biden jumble of confusion. He said ‘freeze’ as in suspend COLA for 1 or more yrs. Even Conservatives would have to call this a ‘cut’ because whenever I’ve read their proposals they always lament, ‘if only we restricted the growth in govt spending to the inflation rate we would have a balanced budget’ or ‘Reagan didn’t cut the budget he just reduced the rate of growth’.Social Security COLA is by definition, the inflation rate, it only grows by the inflation rate. Its spending is frozen.Good piece – keep it upSo I guess we can say Sanders is a socialist because he went to Communist Moscow for his honeymoon… You Sanders fan would legitimately think it’s OK to make that statement?Of course it would be wrong, as wrong as writing the statement in that article…You see, there is one big difference between the two : Sanders think spending is endless, Biden thinks it’s not.Sanders want to escalate the debt, Biden not by fighting the deficit.Your social program can only go as far as you have the money for it. Attacking your democrat collegue with lies because he want to limit spending just show how unprofessionnal Sanders is as an administrator.Lie are always bad, even if it help your cause. That’s what Trump fans does, is it also the way Sanders is doing politic? With lies and conspiracy?Figures. Biden’s nothing less than a snake.When will the govt pension offset end. Which the Reagan Administration signed into law law. I retired from the Federal govt, and because I recd a federal pension, I recd an offset from social security pension net checks $47.00 and offset, and as a wife I recd $81.00 as a widow for pass 5 years combined social security is $127.Is this fair, I’m struggling.FAIR’s 4-page, ad-free, newsletter publishes ten times a year bringing you the media analysis and activism that you won’t find anywhere else. Choose a print subscription, a digital PDF edition, or both together.FAIR is the national progressive media watchdog group, challenging corporate media bias, spin and misinformation. We work to invigorate the First Amendment by advocating for greater diversity in the press and by scrutinizing media practices that marginalize public interest, minority and dissenting viewpoints. We expose neglected news stories and defend working journalists when they are muzzled. As a progressive group, we believe that structural reform is ultimately needed to break up the dominant media conglomerates, establish independent public broadcasting and promote strong non-profit sources of information.Fairness &amp; Accuracy In Reporting124 W. 30th Street, Suite 201New York, NY 10001Tel: 212-633-6700We rely on your support to keep running. Please consider donating.This work is licensed under a License.

&nbsp;Here’s something many Americans would be very interested to know: Is a leading candidate in the Democratic primary a liar? And since a of Americans have cuts to Social Security, the country’s , Democratic voters in particular might be interested to know if a President Joe Biden would try to cut Social Security.Former Vice President Biden has to Social Security for , and is on the record for saying things like:When I argued that we should freeze federal spending, I meant Social Security as well. I meant Medicare and Medicaid. I meant veterans’ benefits. I meant every single solitary...

public

Joshua Cho is a writer based in Virginia.

Joshua Cho

Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting, holding corporate media accountable for distortions & omissions since 1986. http://mastodon.world/@FAIR

23 Headlines Obscure Biden's Lies About Cutting Social Security - FAIR

No article scores yet.

CRITIC REVIEWS

PUBLIC REVIEWS