Unbalanced “balanced coverage” argues against its own premise

by David Safier

It's both Democrats' and Republicans' fault the supercommittee ended in gridlock. I know it's true, because the media tells me so.

Take the AP analysis in the Star:

End to debt gridlock is nowhere in sight

See, Republicans want lower taxes, which would mean cutting social programs, and Democrats want to protect social programs. The Republicans refuse to raise anyone's taxes, even the rich, while the Democrats refuse to consider cuts in . . . Wait a minute. The Democrats said they would accept some cuts if it was part of a package which included higher taxes on millionaires. They actually presented a package containing the two approaches.

So are both parties at fault here?

The problem, according to the AP analysis, is, both parties are afraid to alienate their activists. So both R and D activists must be making similarly unreasonable demands, right?

Republican lawmakers respond to activists who overwhelmingly oppose higher taxes. And Democrats answer to activists who will tolerate no nicks in Medicare, Social Security and other programs without steeper taxes on the wealthy.

Just a sec. Let me read that passage one more time. It looks like it says the R activists are my-way-or-the-highway types. Absolutely no new taxes, no way, no how. But the D activists say they'll consider cuts in programs like Medicare and Social Security if they're accompanied by a tax hike on the rich.

One side says Absolutely No Compromise. The other side says Compromise. That's not my interpretation. That's what it says in the article. The Rs guaranteed the supercommittee would fail if the Ds didn't give up everything, and the Ds were willing to make a deal if it split the difference between the two.

The fail is on the Republican side. End of story. Those are the facts in the AP analysis. Unfortunately, the writer appears to be logic impaired, like most of the "balanced coverage" media.