Facts vs. Theories; Lies and Distortions

Today I have witnessed the media reach a new low. Shockingly, the barrier between opinion and news has been blurred. When I read the article When government fails: The pathetic official response to Katrina has shocked the world. How will it change America? in the Economist today I thought that this must be opinion. Nope - it's the news. Here are some highlights from the Economist's disturbingly biased and overall crappy reporting. No wonder Europeans hate Americans...

Slowly, falteringly and much too late, America began to respond this week to the devastation wrought by Hurricane Katrina.

Is this statement a fact? Things could have gone better in the beginning, but are we still "slow" and "faltering?" Of course not.

Here's a fun quote :

Though a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll found that only 13% supposed the president should take most responsibility for the relief effort, or lack of it, both appalled at Mr Bush's failure to grasp the scale of the catastrophe; shocked that his senior staff were absent, or on holiday, while thousands of Americans were stranded without food and water; and aghast at the bumbling response of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), which is charged with coping when disasters strike.

In case you missed it, that quote means that even though the American people don't believe it's Bush's fault, it, uh, still is.

The White House spin-machine whirled into action, trying to shift blame to local and state officials.

It did? I must have missed those public statements by the administration that local officials are to blame. Because wow - if the White House would have done that, it would really seem as though they were shifting blame away from themselves... that is, if the administration would have made that statement - but it didn't.

America's racial rift has been re-opened. Almost all the desperate-looking victims on the television news are black. That partly reflects demography -New Orleans is two-thirds black. It also reflects poverty. Those who failed to leave town typically did so because they had no means of transport. Some 35% of black households lacked a car, compared with 15% of white ones.

Hold on - is this one Bush's fault? I really think it was probably the Mayor or maybe the Governor that would be responsible for getting people out of a city soon to be demolished by a major storm. Especially if they didn't have cars...

While describing that victims of the storm have failed to take advantages of offers of refuge in more northern states the Economist makes this insane statement:

That may be as well. Both sides are aware of the tensions that might accrue once short-term needs are met. The refugees will overwhelmingly be black, their hosts white; evacuees will come from a place that ranks last in most measures of civic health and social cohesion, and will end up in states that rank near the top in all of those measures. No wonder the survivors would rather stay closer to home.

Are racial tensions innate? Is that something that is inevitable between races? Would a better health system and greater "social cohesion" make black people feel out of place in Wisconsin or Minnesota? What the hell did that statement mean?

Finally:

The 2006 budget - agreed in principle but not in detail- is supposed to include $35 billion in budget cuts over next five years, including in Medicaid, the federal-state health-care programme for the poor.

Now this is either a lie or an honest mistake. It's evidence that if an ignorant person makes a statement about something enough times it becomes true. There is no plan to cut Medicaid. What people need to understand is that federal funding of Medicaid and Medicare increase automatically from year to year. This "cut" of $35 billion means that federal funding of Medicaid will increase $35 billion less than it was originally slated to over the next five years. A common misconception provided every time a mandatory government hand-out program fails to increase its spending by a satisfactory amount, Democrats call it a "cut."

Anyway, I really can't believe what I just read. The Economist's idea of reporting is nothing but flagrant fictional crap. I can't believe they printed it, but the sad thing is that I know people will believe it...