When is a filibuster not a filibuster? When it is reported by the corporate ‘lamesteam media’


Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Yesterday, Tea-Publican Senators filibustered a Democratic bill to continue the student loan program at the current 3.4 percent interest rate for another year to allow more time for Congress to come up with a compromise.

So how did the corporate "lamestream media" report this Tea-Publican filibuster?

Philip Elliott of the AP (All Propaganda) had the most mind-bending GOP-spin, After failure on student loans, lawmakers eye renewed negotiations to restore lower rates: "The defeat of a student loan bill in the Senate on Wednesday clears the
way for fresh negotiations to restore lower rates, but lawmakers are
racing the clock before millions of students return to campus next month
to find borrowing terms twice as high as when school let out."

Go ahead, try to find the word "filibuster" anywhere in this lengthy article. (Hint: it's not there).

And by the way, the House passed a bill in May that would set these rates according to the market, up to 8.5 percent. Those rates could change over the life of a loan. So the GOP is not interested in "restoring lower rates," Mr. Elliot. That would be the Democratic bill that Tea-Publican Senators just filibustered.

Surely the Gray Lady, th New York Times, told its readers the truth, didn't it? Jonathan Weisman of the Times writes, Rift
Among Democrats Stalls Effort to Reverse Rise in College Loan Rates
. Say what now?

Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV), a lone defector, constitutes "a rift among Democrats"? By this journalistic standard, every time a reporter writes anything about the Republican Party he or she must be obligated to include the phrase "a rift among Republicans."

To his credit, Mr. Weisman did mention, if only in passing, that Sen. Manchin (D-WV) and Angus King (Ind.-ME) "voted with Republicans to filibuster the Democratic
plan, which received 52 votes, 8 short of the number needed to break
the delay."

It may come as a surprise to Mr. Weisman that even if Sens. Manchin and King had voted in favor of the Democratic bill, it still would have failed to achieve the 60 votes needed to overcome the Tea-Publican filibuster with just Tea-Publican votes. And in any other democracy, the bill did in fact pass on a 52-48 vote.

What about the Washington Post/Pete Peterson Foundation partnership? Jenna Johnson of the Post writes, Senate
student loan interest rate bill fails on procedural vote
. I will concede that a cloture vote is a procedural vote, but are reporters prohibited from using the colloquial "filibuster" to describe it? Again, "filibuster" appears nowhere in this article.

The reporting on this bill constitutes journalistic malpractice by the corporate "lamesteam media." The public is not only being misinformed, but is being deliberately mislead.

Here is the GOP-spin on the vote from the TanMan, Weeper of the House John Boehner, who said,
"Republicans acted to protect students from higher interest rates and
make college more affordable, yet Senate Democratic leaders let student
loan interest rates double without passing any legislation to address
the issue."

Once again, the House passed a bill
in May that would set these rates according to the market, up to
8.5 percent. So according to the TanMan, a variable market interest rate up to 8.5 percent is "protecting students from higher interest rates," who would only be paying 3.4 percent under the Democratic bill filibustered by Tea-Publicans in the Senate. This is Doublespeak from George Orwell's 1984.

If Congress cannot come to an agreement, student loan interest rates will double to 6.8 percent. (When I went to law school 20 something years ago, my student loan interest rate was 9 percent, by way of comparison). Nick Anderson of the Washington Post explains how the numbers stack up for a hypothetical student borrower, at
6.8 percent versus 3.4 percent. Cost
of the student loan rate hike