A letter to the editor in today's News & Record by Robert A. Hahn of Greensboro claims that gas prices are going up because Democrats took away subsidies for the oil industry. Specifically, Hahn writes:
"The Democrats took control of Congress in January 2007. At that time, the economy was doing pretty well. One of the first things that the Democratic Congress did was to “punish” big oil by reducing subsidies."
Not true. The House of Representatives approved an energy bill in 2007 that would have reduced subsidies, but those provisions were rejected by the senate and the final bill, with subsidies intact, was signed into law by President Bush.
I don't know why the N&R continues to allow letters that contain factual errors. This is not an isolated incident. These are not matters of opinion that writers should be free to express. These are empirical untruths. One would think the N&R would not publish such inaccuracies, but they seem to have no compunction for doing so.
Roch, it might be useful for you to put this remark into the comments for Robert's letter. I'm tempted to comment with a link to this post, but I wanted to check with you first.
ReplyDeleteI tried to leave a link to this post under the letter in question, but for some reason, my comment was flagged for moderation. Hopefully it will eventually get approved, but you are welcome to link here from there too, if you'd like.
ReplyDeleteThe fact of the matter is that gas prices have rised exponentially under a Liberal Democratic Congress just like it did under the Liberal Carter administration.
ReplyDeleteJust like they did under a Republican administration and Republican congress. The point of the matter is that the letter's author tried to lay the blame on Democrats because of something they didn't do. His supposed statement of fact was completely erroneous and the N&R published it anyway.
ReplyDeleteJust one opinion Roch, but I don't believe it's the responsibilty of the N&R to check facts on LTE. Certainly they don't have the staff to do that and these are not news reports, they're personal comments.
ReplyDeleteWe disagree then, Tony. A letters editor who is paying attention would be all that is required. If I sent a letter that said congressional Republicans passed a bill that abolished visas as a requirement for entry from Mexico, would you expect the N&R to print that? Would you think them responsible in doing so? Would you chalk it up as acceptable simply because they are personal comments?
ReplyDeleteRoch,
ReplyDeleteDo you also disagree with Hahn's summary?
Hahn: "The Democrats are doing what they are good at, increasing taxes while spinning their actions in populist rhetoric."
Tony,
ReplyDeleteHahn's statement is meaningless rhetoric. Had he lead his readers to that conclusion through some logical progression starting from a place of factual accuracy, he might have been persuasive. As it is, he comes across as someone more interested in empty talking points than reasoned analysis.
Now it's your turn to answer the questions I asked you above.
They use misinformation that they get from the higher ups and then regurgitate it to the local presses as fact. Many times they don't even know what they are talking about - as in the conservative pundit on "Hardball" who could not define 'appeasement' for Chris Matthews. Their Regan/Bush educations are coming back to bite them, because smarter men are making them look like idiots.
ReplyDeleteI still maintain that I do not look for "facts" on the editorial pages nor do I believe the N&R should be responsible for "fact checking" on these pages.
ReplyDeleteRoch, you are much more up to date on "facts" than most so I can understand how this could be disturbing to you.
editorial, noun:
an article giving opinions or perspectives.
But, you didn't answer my questions, Tony.
ReplyDeleteYour question is a little extreme. No, I wouldn't think them responsible for printing that.
ReplyDeleteRoch, we just disagree on the role of the N&R on their editorial pages and LTE.
By the way, what was the N&R's reaction to your comments?
Tony, you appear to be self-contradictory on this issue: A writer who gets his facts wrong about the actions of Democrats is to be excused because he his expressing his opinion, while my example of a writer getting his facts wrong about Republicans is "extreme." You don't think the N&R should fact check letters but you'd think them irresponsible if they printed my Republican-sliming example. I think that's called situational ethics.
ReplyDeleteThe N&R has not responded in any way.