Media Bias: Bush Social Security Plan
The Washington Times warns us to be wary of news coverage of the Bush Social Security reform plan that excludes words like "voluntary," "bonds" and "diversified mutual funds." (here)
The WashTimes is not just speculating about biased coverage that could happen; its crosstown rival provided the perfect example of real, here and now distortion:
The Washington Post ran a story on its front page Wednesday based on a poll conducted Dec. 19 that asked people if they would support or oppose a plan that lets workers put part of their Social Security payroll taxes "in the stock market."
The poll said that a majority of 53 percent agreed and 44 percent opposed the idea. The poll also asked if people would support such a plan if "the stock market went down." That's about as loaded a question as you can imagine. In response to this question, the Post reported, "62 percent said they would not participate in such a program if it meant their retirement income would go up or down depending on the performance of their stock picks --- which is the essence of Bush's plan."
Well, that's not true. The essence of Mr. Bush's plan is far broader than this, though the Post chose not to mention it in their story or in their polling. Mr. Bush's proposal would allow workers, if they choose, to invest a small part of their payroll taxes in stock or bond funds or a combination of the two, through balanced, broad-based, highly diversified mutual funds. These are the same kind of funds that tens of millions of Americans at all income levels invest in now. These are the same kind of funds that federal employees are allowed to invest their pension contributions in now, including many members of Congress in both parties.
The WashTimes is not just speculating about biased coverage that could happen; its crosstown rival provided the perfect example of real, here and now distortion:
The Washington Post ran a story on its front page Wednesday based on a poll conducted Dec. 19 that asked people if they would support or oppose a plan that lets workers put part of their Social Security payroll taxes "in the stock market."
The poll said that a majority of 53 percent agreed and 44 percent opposed the idea. The poll also asked if people would support such a plan if "the stock market went down." That's about as loaded a question as you can imagine. In response to this question, the Post reported, "62 percent said they would not participate in such a program if it meant their retirement income would go up or down depending on the performance of their stock picks --- which is the essence of Bush's plan."
Well, that's not true. The essence of Mr. Bush's plan is far broader than this, though the Post chose not to mention it in their story or in their polling. Mr. Bush's proposal would allow workers, if they choose, to invest a small part of their payroll taxes in stock or bond funds or a combination of the two, through balanced, broad-based, highly diversified mutual funds. These are the same kind of funds that tens of millions of Americans at all income levels invest in now. These are the same kind of funds that federal employees are allowed to invest their pension contributions in now, including many members of Congress in both parties.
posted by Laer at 6:38 AM
<< Home