Battle Objective Journalism

Written by Joel Caris
Published March 11, 2005
page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4
Hagel's bill, the Saving Social Security Act, would allow workers under 45 — instead of those under 55, as the president has proposed — to move as much as 4 percent of their payroll tax into investment accounts. It also would raise the retirement age from 67 to 68 and reduce benefits for individuals who retire at a younger age. [Italics ours.]
You read that and disappointment washes over you. You can't possibly justify spending two trillion dollars to overhaul Social Security when the potential benefits are so limited by how much of your taxes you can invest. Thus, you decide not to support the bill and, in fact, actively work against it, calling your Senators to voice your disapproval.

Unfortunately, Senator Hagel doesn't understand his own bill and neither does the Los Angeles Times. If they did, and if the Times had written what the bill actually does do, you would support it.

There are often two ways that people receive information--from the source of the information and from the press. This is particularly true in politics, where politicians talk about their plans and the press reports on them. However, politicians on both sides of the aisle cannot be trusted to be entirely honest and forthright with their information. There certainly are times that they are, but too often they couch their activities--or the activities of their opponents--in broad strokes of rhetoric that aim for emotional responses and, often times, obscure the facts of what they are proposing. Therefore, it is crucial that the public can turn to the second source of information--the press--to obtain a full and honest account of the situation.

Objective journalism is crucial to a functioning society and democracy. Unfortunately, the public simply cannot make personal contact with those who make the news and who shape our society and government. The vast majority of the public does not have time to do their own in-depth research on various issues so that they are properly informed. Instead, they depend on the press to do it for them. We, the public, sit down in the morning or evening with the local paper, we turn on the local evening news, we watch the network news shows or CNN, Fox or MSNBC, or we read Time and Newsweek. Perhaps we check out alternative weeklies or read our news online. Either way, the majority of the public partakes in journalism in some form and depends on it to provide them with an honest, objective look at the world. We depend on the press to educate us so that we can make informed decisions.

page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4
Keep reading for information and comments on this article, and add some feedback of your own!
Battle Objective Journalism
Published: March 11, 2005
Type:
Section: Culture
Filed Under: Culture: Media
Writer: Joel Caris
Joel Caris's BC Writer page
Joel Caris's personal site
Spread the Word
Like this article?
Email this
Submit to del.icio.us Save to del.icio.us
RSS Feeds
All RSS Feeds (240+)
Comments on this article
BC articles by Joel Caris
Culture: Media
All Culture Articles
All BC articles
All BC Comments

Comments

#1 — March 11, 2005 @ 14:58PM — Temple Stark [URL]

Please explain the difference between percentage points and percent. In common parlance I don't think very many people would make a distinction.

Well presented.

I've got a we little post on this subject going on over at my site. I'm going to post it here soon.

#2 — March 11, 2005 @ 15:19PM — Joel Caris [URL]

Percentage points basically come into play when you're dealing with percentages of percentages. So when I say four percentage points of a 12.4 percent tax, I'm basically making that 12.4 percent into percentage points. So I'm saying 4 percentage points of 12.4 percentage points, or about one third of the total.

For instance, let's say that your 12.4% payroll tax represented $3000 that you paid in those taxes. If I say you can invest four percent of that--as Sen. Hagel and the LA Times said--then that would be just $120. Not that much.

The reality is that you could invest four percentage points of that 12.4% tax, rather than four percent of the total. To break it down, a percentage point of that $3000 would equal 3000/12.4, which would be just under $242. You could invest four percentage points, so 4x242, so $968. That's a big difference from $120.

Hopefully that makes sense for people who are a bit confused.

#3 — March 12, 2005 @ 06:52AM — Jim [URL]

Very interesting analysis.

Want comments emailed to you? No spam, promise! Address:

Add your comment, speak your mind

(Or ping: http://blogcritics.org/mt/tb/26581)

Personal attacks are not allowed. Please read our comment policy.





Remember Name/URL?

Please preview your comment!

Fresh
Articles
Fresh
Comments