UNLIKE some of the more vocal callers who appear on C-SPAN's television show "Washington Journal" - the political version of "The Jerry Springer Show" - I don't hold the belief that a vast left-wing conspiracy exists in the media. I don't believe that media barons conference call each other and discuss the best way to undermine the Republican Party. I do believe, however, that a large number of the media has its own subtle, generally liberal biases. While these reporters, writers and talking heads would never openly admit to supporting one group of policies over another, a reporter's choice of words can be very interesting.
Looking at The Washington Post's Web site Tuesday, I chanced upon an Associated Press article that detailed a speech President George W. Bush made in Independence, Missouri. Christopher Newton, the reporter for this story, wrote the following: "President Bush told a crowd in Harry Truman's hometown Tuesday that the federal budget has enough money for his massive tax cut and bolstering the military, Social Security and Medicare." Before completing the first paragraph of the story, my eyes focused on the word "massive."
After a moment's thought, only one of two options may be reasonable regarding the use of the word "massive": Either Christopher Newton, AP reporter, is showing a rather pronounced bias against the tax cut, or Mr. Newton possesses the economic understanding of a deaf cow.
Of course, the tax cut the president signed into law had a very large number of zeroes attached to it. It is scheduled to return to the taxpayers - opponents would say cost - $1.35 trillion dollars. Standing alone, one might consider the tax cut to be a large, even massive, pile of money.
Of course, most folks measure an object's size in context. A Chevy Spectrum is fast, compared to walking. A redwood tree is massive, until one compares it to an entire forest of trees. The tax cut may seem massive, if one doesn't, for one moment, consider it in comparison to the rest of the budget.
First, the implementation of the cut is phased in gradually, over a 10-year period. The $300 average rebate that most individuals are receiving represents the gradual nature of the tax rollback.
Since the cut takes place over an extended period of time, it makes sense to look at the budgetary numbers over that same period of time.
Ignoring the federal budget itself, the surpluses over this 10-year time are projected to reach the trillions. To re-emphasize their definition, governmental surpluses occur when the government has taken too much money from its revenue-generating sources - average Joe and Janice Taxpayer. This means that this tax cut, taken in the 10-year context, amounts to approximately 10 percent of the projected surplus.
Stated another way, the tax cut intends to give back approximately 10 percent of the excess funds the government has taken from the taxpayer base. It does not intend to eat into the budget itself. In fact, programs in the budget have not been cut and likely will not be cut any time in the near future. Amazingly, programs with the same relevancy as the West Virginia Submarine Technology Program will remain intact for Democratic Sen. Robert C. Byrd.
Naturally, the Post article does not place the tax cut into any kind of timeframe or context. It does not even mention the tax cut's amount. It just says that Bush's tax cut is "massive." It takes such an opinionated, factually inaccurate statement to be true. The newspapers that print Mr. Newton's story will promulgate the view that it's true.
The people who lack the initiative to consider any issue beyond the story itself will begin to believe that the tax cut - a 10 percent return of excess government funds - is, indeed, massive.
Thus, one reporter's choice of one word can have a serious impact on those who read the stories. The damage is increased when the reporter's word choice is questionable, even when taken in the best possible light.
Not all reporters are liberal, and not all of them allow word choices like this one escape into their stories. However, news consumers should ready themselves to question the simplest word in a story. As Mr. Newton's article has shown, one word can have a significant impact the presentation of a larger issue.
(Seth Wood is a Cavalier Daily columnist. He can be reached at swood@ cavalierdaily.com.)
Read More
PATEL: Personal development courses support students beyond the gradebook
By Heer Patel | 17 hours agoThe University must rethink its approach to education beyond traditional major-specific requirements and mandate personal development courses.
EDITORIAL: Commercialization threatens U.Va.’s educational mission
By Editorial Board | YesterdayAfter all, measuring the University’s worth in terms of accrued capital, operational efficiency and numerical rankings molds this space into just another cookie-cutter institution.
YOUNIS: Why every U.Va. student should say yes to English
By Ayat Younis | 6 days agoEvery student at the University, regardless of their primary field of study, can professionally and academically benefit from engaging with the English department.
