Barber-Kelly article in the Star: Textbook false equivalence

by David Safier

Before carefully and accurately taking apart Brady McCombs' front page article in the Sunday Star, "Seniors' benefits dominate CD 8 race" (print edition only), AZ Blue Meanie accuses me of being a soft old teacher, always looking for the good in people. Guilty as charged. See, the high school English teacher in me saw a marked improvement in McCombs' article on the Kelly press conference in the print edition over the earlier online version. It went from a C- online to a B+ in print. But then he didn't write a similar article, online or in the print edition, covering the Barber press conference the next week even though he was there taking notes. That's a double F for failure to turn in required work. And as the Meanie demonstrates in detail, today's article creates a false equivalence between the truth and falsehood of a number of assertions made by the Barber and Kelly campaigns.

Grading today's article is bit of a stumper for this old teacher. I'll have give it a B+ for style and readability over a D for giving readers the information they need to separate fact from fiction. Since I prize content over style, the overall grade is a C-.

Eight paragraphs into the article, there's nothing but a simplistic "He said, He said" recitation of the way the two sides portray each other on Social Security and Medicare. Since most readers won't get much farther than that, the takeaway is: Both sides are spinning equally, so when you vote, choose the guy whose looks you like the best.

[Note: I understand this is how articles are structured, moving from the general to the specific. But instead of wasting the sidebar with a list of mind-numbing figures, the space could have been used to summarize the arguments on both sides and to rate their validity.]

McCombs makes his first judgement call in the article about 5 paragraphs later, where he says CD-8 seniors could take a "hit" from the cuts to Medicare in the Affordable Care Act. One point against Barber, with no mention of the many credible sources that debunk the Republican talking point that the $500 billion cost reduction will come out of Medicare benefits. Barber loses another point on the same topic a few paragraphs later: "Democrats say some of the reductions will not mean cuts in service." Implication: if some reductions won't mean cuts in services, the rest of the reductions will cut services. Instead of Kelly being mostly wrong on this point, he sounds mostly right.

Did Kelly change his position on Medicare and Social Security? In the article, Democrats say he did,but it comes off as a partisan allegation. McCombs doesn't lay out the evidence in a clear way. One point for Kelly because the reporter ducked his responsibility of clearly calling Kelly either a flip flopper or a liar on the issue.

McCombs says Kelly's position on privatization "remains unclear." Actually, it's perfectly clear, even in the article. The only thing unclear is whether Kelly will ever admit "put[ting] half of your payroll taxes in a personal account so the government can't touch it" (a Kelly quote in the article) is the very definition of privatization.

Shouldn't readers be informed the $500 billion charge used by the Kelly campaign against Barber was used in 2010 as well and is being recycled against Democrats across the country? And shouldn't readers also be informed the Paul Ryan budget includes the identical $500 billion in cuts? Those are facts, not opinions, which lead to the obvious conclusion that Republicans don't object to the $500 billion in cost reductions but they are cynically using them against Democrats. That conclusion isn't even hinted at in the article.

So, to respond to Az Blue Meanie: Yes, I'm a squishy-hearted teacher who tries to give people the benefit of the doubt. That's what kept me returning to my classroom day after day for 30+ years. But Meanie, you're absolutely right about this article — facts are facts — and if this is the best we see out of McCombs from now through November, I agree he doesn't have the chops to be a good political reporter. But you know, Meanie, I live in hope. I'll keep watching McCombs' articles to see if I can find signs of improvement.