Yesterday's AP "factcheck" (9/20/11) of Barack Obama's speech about raising taxes on the super-wealthy cleverly debunked an argument that Obama didn't make. No one is saying that all millionaires pay a lower rate than their secretaries--Warren Buffett drew attention because he said he did, and there are undoubtedly other multi-millionaires in the same boat. As Dean Baker observed at Beat the Press today (9/21/11):

President Obama made a simple and true statement in his speech on the budget Monday. He said that there were millionaires and billionaires who pay tax at a lower rate than middle income families.

Many news outlets went to town to point out that on average millionaires and billionaires pay tax at a higher rate than middle income families. Of course this is not what Obama said. He was pointing out that some of the richest people in the country (Warren Buffet was his model) get most or all of their income as capital gains and therefore only pay taxes at the 15 percent capital gains rate.

Baker recommends a piece in today's New York Times (9/21/11) that was more factual than AP's factcheck:

In 2009, 238,000 households filed returns with adjusted gross incomes of at least $1 million. One-quarter of them paid an effective federal income tax rate of less than 15 percent, the data shows, and 1,470 paid no federal income tax at all....

Though the group is small, the dollars are large. For the top 400 taxpayers, the effective federal income tax rate has dropped from 29 percent in 1993 to 18 percent in 2008. The average adjusted gross income of those 400 households was $271 million. By comparison, households with $50,000 to $75,000 in income paid an effective rate of 15 percent, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

But the AP piece has legs--a Slate article noted: "But as a general point, Buffett is wrong: In aggregate, richer earners do pay higher rates." The link goes to the AP factcheck. Again--Buffett was talking about himself and others like him. It would not seem to be a hard concept to grasp, but for whatever reason there are reporters who seem interested in protected the super-wealthy.

In other tax news: Fox's Bill O'Reilly has apparently threatened to quit working if his taxes go up. Let's hope Congress considers the enormously positive political and social effects this could have on American life.

Fox Sports, covering a football game between the Chicago Bears and Atlanta Falcons (9/11/11), put up a bunch of headlines about Bears quarterback Jay Cutler's knee problems:

Cutler Leaves With Injury

Cutler Lacks Courage

Cutler's No Leader

"These are the actual headlines from the local papers in Chicago," announcer Daryl Johnston declared. Wow, were the local papers really that harsh? Reporters from the Chicago Tribune remembered the press being pretty supportive of the injured player, actually, and accordingly suspected funny business.  After their search of papers all over Illinois turned up no such headlines, Fox Sports admitted they had just made them up. "It was misleading," spokesperson Dan Bell told the Trib (9/18/11; Poynter, 9/19/11).

Fox Sports is, of course, owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corp, a conglomerate notable for its ethical challenges. In other News Corp news, a preliminary study of movie review conflicts of interest found that Murdoch-owned outlets gave significantly better reviews to films released by 20th Century Fox, their corporate sibling.

The boost amounted to an extra star for every 12 Fox movies reviewed. Outlets owned by Time Warner, by contrast, did not appear to give higher ratings to films put out by that conglomerate's Warner Brothers studio--though they did review such films earlier and at greater length.

Columnist Michael Barone, best known for editing The Almanac of American Politics, wrote a piece (Boston Herald,  9/20/11) declaring that Barack Obama's "Sellout to Unions Staggers Economy." After noting that "some pro-union moves have a certain ritual quality," he got down to the really troubling behavior:

Other steps are more important. Fully one-third of the $820 billion stimulus package passed almost entirely with Democratic votes in 2009 was aid to state and local governments. This was intended to keep state and local public employee union members--much more numerous than federal employees--on the job and to keep taxpayer-funded union dues pouring into public employee union treasuries.

Or, maybe, it was intended to stimulate the economy, since transfers to states and local governments are estimated by the Congressional Budget Office (TheAtlantic.com, 3/2/09) to be among the most effective means the federal government has to encourage economic activity.

And, possibly, there might have been some thought that teachers, firefighters, nurses, police officers and other state and local workers have important jobs that need to get done, and it would be better not to fire them.

Nah--that couldn't be it. It must have been an effort to fill union treasuries, the economy be damned.

Yesterday Barack Obama made a speech outlining his deficit reduction plan--focusing attention on a variety of spending cuts and tax increases. The Associated Press, as is their habit, issued a "factcheck" piece by Stephen Ohlemacher that managed to bungle the issues involved, making it sound as if Obama was wrong about the taxes that wealthy people pay.

Here's how it started:

President Barack Obama makes it sound as if there are millionaires all over America paying taxes at lower rates than their secretaries.

"Middle-class families shouldn't pay higher taxes than millionaires and billionaires," Obama said Monday. "That's pretty straightforward. It's hard to argue against that."

The data tell a different story. On average, the wealthiest people in America pay a lot more taxes than the middle class or the poor, according to private and government data. They pay at a higher rate, and as a group, they contribute a much larger share of the overall taxes collected by the federal government.

If that's what you get from "the data,"  AP doesn't do a good job of showing it. The piece points out early on that about 1,400 millionaires paid no income tax at all--that's a small number of tax avoiders, they explain, though clearly this would be part of what Obama is talking about.

But then they zero in on what seems to be their best case:

This year, households making more than $1 million will pay an average of 29.1 percent of their income in federal taxes, including income taxes and payroll taxes, according to the Tax Policy Center, a Washington think tank.

Households making between $50,000 and $75,000 will pay 15 percent of their income in federal taxes.

Well, that sounds like a slam dunk, right? The rich pay twice as much as middle class earners. Or maybe not:

Obama's claim hinges on the fact that, for high-income families and individuals, investment income is often taxed at a lower rate than wages. The top tax rate for dividends and capital gains is 15 percent. The top marginal tax rate for wages is 35 percent, though that is reserved for taxable income above $379,150.

So what if much of a really wealthy person's income is investment income? AP doesn't get into that; it moves on to discussing the fact that a lot of poor people pay no income tax.

It's useful to recall that Warren Buffett--supposedly the inspiration for this plan--was saying that he made $46 million but only paid 17 percent in taxes. His secretary, he said, paid more--relative to what she earned.  Is Buffett the only one who's figured out how to do this? One recent report from the Citizens for Tax Justice showed:

The IRS report shows that in 2008 (the latest year for which data are available), the 400 richest income tax filers paid just 18.1 percent of their adjusted gross income (AGI) in federal income taxes.

That is down from 22.3 percent in 2000.

And this post from the Tax Policy Center tries to explain further:

The lower taxes on investment income mean that many high-income taxpayers face a lower ETR [effective tax rate] than middle- and upper-middle-income people who get almost all of their income from working. People in the top 0.1 percent--those with income over $2.18 million in 2011--who get more than two-thirds of their income from gains and dividends face an ETR of just 12 percent, compared with 16 percent for people in the fourth quintile who get less than 10 percent of their income from investments.

It's worth recalling that Obama's actual point was this:

They should have to defend that unfairness--explain why somebody who’s making $50 million a year in the financial markets should be paying 15 percent on their taxes, when a teacher making $50,000 a year is paying more than that--paying a higher rate.

It is difficult to see what is wrong with that statement. The Associated Press took  a seemingly uncontroversial point and, by magic of its "factchecking" machine, turned into an inaccuracy.

The front page of USA Today (9/19/11) tells us that Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry is taking "the heat," but not to worry--he says he can handle it.

That's especially true with reporters like Susan Page on his side:

He's not worried, he said, because only one issue really matters to Americans in this election. It's the one he plans to ride first against his Republican rivals and then against President Obama.

Jobs.

"I'll be asked about a hundred different issues a thousand different ways," he said in the interview Friday, one of only a few he has done since announcing his candidacy last month. "But it is about who has the record, who has the vision to get Americans working again." That's what "Republicans, independents and even, I think, a number of Democrats … are looking for."

As he told those at a county GOP dinner in Jefferson, a coffeehouse crowd in Newton and workers at a Coca-Cola bottling plant in Atlantic, he can cite job-creation statistics in Texas that are the envy of the nation's other 49 governors. The Lone Star State has accounted for 40 percent of the jobs created in the United States since June 2009.

We've been through this before (and we'll go through it many, many more times).

It's likely that a competent governor--and certainly a competent reporter--would be more concerned about the unemployment rate in a given state, which takes into account not only how many people have jobs but how many people need jobs. On that score, Texas is right in the middle of the pack. So there are plenty of governors who actually wouldn't envy Texas.

Page goes on:

Now Perry is pouncing on [Mitt] Romney with the brio of a rodeo cowboy lassoing a bull.

To every audience, he ridicules Romney's record on jobs when he was governor (Massachusetts ranked 47th nationwide)....

The unemployment rate in Massachusetts is more than a point lower than it is in Texas. Something Page could have found out even without a lasso.

A Washington Post story on Sunday (9/18/11) argues that many recipients of Social Security aren't really paying attention to what the GOP presidential front-runners are saying about Social Security. The real story, then, is what kind of narrative the candidates are trying to establish. As reporter Amy Gardner puts it:

In many ways, it doesn't matter to the candidates whether people are attuned to what they are actually saying about Social Security. For them, the issue is instead serving as a proxy for the narrative each is trying to establish about himself.

For Perry, standing by his brash statements on Social Security--he has called it a "Ponzi scheme" and a "monstrous lie"--presents a chance to show that he's a straight-shooter unafraid to confront the nation's toughest challenges.

"I don't get particularly concerned that I need to back off from my factual statement that Social Security, as it is structured today, is broken," Perry said in an interview published in Time magazine last week. "If you want to call it a Ponzi scheme, if you want to say it's a criminal enterprise, if you just want to say it's broken--they all get to the same point. We need, as a country, to have an adult conversation."

This is actually a great illustration of a terrible problem with political reporting. How candidates are using policy discussions to frame their candidacies is actually much less important than whether what they're saying is nonsense.

Perry's Social Security claims are wildly misleading. Press coverage should explain that to readers (and, you know, voters) instead of talking about how his inaccurate claims means he's a "straight-shooter."

Finally, they will have a voice in the corporate media (New York Times, 9/19/11):

When Discovery Communications set out to reformat HD Theater, the nine-year-old home of high-definition documentaries, its executives assessed the crowded cable programming landscape and asked what was missing--where there was "white space," as one later put it.

What was missing, they decided, was a channel for the Rich Man--the successful, college-educated man who earns $150,000 or more a year and who wants to know how to spend his time and money.

That's how Velocity was hatched. Replacing the low-rated HD Theater on October 4, Velocity is being billed as a high-end men's lifestyle channel about fast cars, fancy auctions and football stars.

At long last, the unjust marginalization of wealthy male consumers is beginning to come to an end.

Mark Halperin has a feature in Time magazine every week called "The Big Questions."

For a process-obsessed campaign reporter, this means a weekly who's up, who's down scorecard, in an easy to follow Q-&-A format.

This week's questions:

Is Sarah Palin in or out?

What could hold her back?

When does she have to decide?

Part of his answer to question one: "Palin remains more interesting to listen to than any other candidate."  Coming from a guy who once said, "I'm ready to cancel my vacation to go cover Rick Perry," maybe this isn't surprising. It is worth pointing out that Sarah Palin isn't, you know, a candidate for anything.

After praising her "maverick appeal" and "pox-on-both-parties, anti-Establishment message," Halperin notes that "as always, the media can't get enough of her."

Well, he's right about that.

From Time magazine's Rick Perry cover story (9/26/11):

When you look at Perry, it's easy to picture him in an old Western. His late arrival in the primary field in August certainly felt like that moment when the big stranger steps through the swinging saloon doors and all heads pivot and the plinky-plunk piano dies away.

Wait-- there's more!

Moreover, Perry doesn't mind kicking over idols in the high church of conventional wisdom, a favorite Tea Party pastime. He's the one who calls Social Security a "monstrous lie," throwing in "Ponzi scheme" for good measure. Social Security is called the third rail of American politics, which is, of course, a reference to the electrified portion of a subway track. Touch it and you die. But there aren't any subways where Rick Perry comes from.

There's a category of media criticism we've often called "Seen and Not Heard." It's usually a protest that's covered via a photo and caption, with no accompanying story to inform readers about what seems like an important issue.

I came across this today in the Washington Post (9/16/11)--the caption headline (not pictured here) is "Nurses Rally for a Tax":

A little more reporting on what they're talking about would have informed readers about an issue the Post probably doesn't spend much time discussing. (Read this paper by Dean Baker about the $150 billion a speculation tax could raise every year--you'd think deficit-obsessed media would rally around this, right?) With any luck that article would include a better headline than "Nurses Rally for a Tax."

Fox host Bill O'Reilly knows a thing or two about boundaries.

As he told his TV audience Monday night, some "far-left" radicals crossed the line on the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. New York Times columnist Paul Krugman wrote a blog post about how some Republican politicians turned the attacks into a "wedge issue," and referred to George W. Bush and Rudolph Giuliani as "fake heroes."

O'Reilly's reaction: Krugman is "insulting his country on the anniversary of 9/11. That is truly despicable."

O'Reilly had a little left in tank, so he went after former Times reporter Chris Hedges for writing this:

Our brutality and triumphalism, the byproducts of nationalism and our infantile pride, revived the jihadist movement.... We descended to its barbarity. We became terrorists, too.

O'Reilly got down to his point:

The reason I am even pointing out the rantings of these far-left loons is that some of their more moderate confederates do not condemn the statements. I mean, the New York Times actually pays Krugman to spout this stuff. Yeah, we have freedom of speech, but there's also a responsibility in the journalistic and political communities, is there not?

Sure, let's talk about media figures using responsible rhetoric. Let's start with Bill O'Reilly's call for brutal attacks on a number of countries right after 9/11:

Fox News Channel's Bill O'Reilly, the channel's most popular host, declared on his September 17 broadcast that if the Afghan government did not extradite Osama bin Laden to the U.S., "the U.S. should bomb the Afghan infrastructure to rubble--the airport, the power plants, their water facilities and the roads." O'Reilly went on to say:

This is a very primitive country. And taking out their ability to exist day to day will not be hard. Remember, the people of any country are ultimately responsible for the government they have. The Germans were responsible for Hitler. The Afghans are responsible for the Taliban. We should not target civilians. But if they don't rise up against this criminal government, they starve, period.

O'Reilly added that in Iraq, "their infrastructure must be destroyed and the population made to endure yet another round of intense pain.... Maybe then the people there will finally overthrow Saddam." If Libya's Moammar Gadhafi does not relinquish power and go into exile, "we bomb his oil facilities, all of them. And we mine the harbor in Tripoli. Nothing goes in, nothing goes out. We also destroy all the airports in Libya. Let them eat sand."

Lucky for O'Reilly, there are few sanctions in corporate media--at Fox or anywhere else--for that kind of bloodthirsty rhetoric.

The New York Times reported today (9/13/11) on the controversy, citing FAIR:

But the CNN debate on Monday was the first event hosted jointly by a major news organization and a Tea Party group. And their partnership left some questioning whether the network had gone too far in reaching for centrist credibility.

"Is there really a need for another national cable news channel devoted to promoting far-right elements within the Republican Party?" the liberal media watchdog group FAIR said Monday in an e-mail alert to its members in which it labeled the Tea Party "a controversial political group."

Jeremy Peters and Brian Stelter also picked up on CNN's weak attempts to spin their Tea Party connection--despite the fact that questions were being piped in from Tea Party events, and the Tea Party Express picked the audience members inside the auditorium:

Here in Tampa, there were signs the network was sensitive to perceptions that it was being too cozy with Tea Party activists. During a tour of the debate hall, Mr. Feist referred to the gatherings in Arizona, Virginia and Ohio, saying, "We'll have watch parties." He was swiftly corrected by CNN's special events producer, Kate Lunger, who interjected, 'Well, we won’t have watch parties."

That distinction--whatever it might be--was probably lost on most viewers.

Veteran journalist Bob Parry wrote a great piece about "the hidden political reality behind 'centrist' journalism--a never-ending pandering to the right." Parry added that he's seen this kind of thing first-hand:

it's useful to have some specific right-tilted story--or event--to point to, just in case a right-wing critic decides to target you as a "liberal." CNN, which the right has sometimes smeared as the "Communist News Network," can now cite its collaboration with the Tea Party as valuable right-wing "cred."

When I was working at PBS Frontline in the early 1990s, senior producers would sometimes order up pre-ordained right-wing programs--such as a show denouncing Cuba's Fidel Castro--to counter Republican attacks on the documentary series for programs the right didn't like, such as Bill Moyers' analysis of the Iran/Contra scandal.

In essence, the idea was to inject right-wing bias into some programming as "balance" to other serious journalism, which presented facts that Republicans found objectionable. That way, the producers could point to the right-wing show to prove their "objectivity" and, with luck, deter GOP assaults on PBS funding.

Over the course of the Iraq War, many U.S. media outlets have managed to misconstrue Iraqi public opinion about the presence of U.S. troops.  As early as 2004, as FAIR (6/2/04) pointed out, research showed that the Iraqi public wanted U.S. troops out:

According to a new poll from the Iraq Center for Research and Strategic Studies, which is partly funded by the State Department and has coordinated its work with the Coalition Provisional Authority, more than half of all Iraqis--including the Kurds--want an immediate withdrawal of U.S. forces, up from 17 percent last October.

But prominent media outlets didn't want to believe this. As John Burns of the New York Times explained:

Opinion polls, including those commissioned by the American command, have long suggested that a majority of Iraqis would like American troops withdrawn, but another lesson to be drawn from Saddam Hussein’s years is that any attempt to measure opinion in Iraq is fatally skewed by intimidation. More often than not, people tell pollsters and reporters what they think is safe, not necessarily what they believe. My own experience, invariably, was that Iraqis I met who felt secure enough to speak with candor had an overwhelming desire to see American troops remain long enough to restore stability.

Turn to yesterday's Times (9/11/11), and you saw this headline:

Many Iraqis Have Second Thoughts as U.S. Exit Nears

The article, by Michael Schmidt, doesn't given any sense of a shift in the broad opposition to the U.S. occupation. Instead, it's mostly an attempt--like others before it, documented in this piece in Extra! by Dahr Jamail--by the Times to convince readers that a series of anecdotes and interviews give a better measure of Iraqi opinion:

Though Iraqis have called for Americans to leave from the start of the occupation in 2003, the prospect of such a drastic drawdown, from the 48,000 troops here now, has revealed another side of the Iraqi psyche. This is a nation that distrusts itself, with little faith in the government’s own security forces or political leaders. It is as if people here never actually believed that the United States would leave, so all along demands for a pullout were never carefully weighed against the potential fallout.

So the "Iraqi psyche" doesn't really trust Iraqis and never thought about what would happen in the event of a "drastic drawdown" of U.S. troops a mere eight years after the occupation began.

Al-Qaeda, bin Laden, never imagined that the 3,000 people who lost their lives that day would inspire 3 million to put on the uniform and harden the resolve of 300 million Americans. They never imagined the sleeping giant they were about to awaken.

-- Vice President Joe Biden at September 11 commemoration (9/11/11)

Actually, that's precisely what bin Laden imagined: Al-Qaeda's central strategy was to draw its Western foes into economically ruinous wars in Muslim lands (Extra!, 7/11). But I suppose it would be bad form for journalists to raise this fact as the U.S. commemorates a decade of war and economic decline.

Send a message to CNN about the cable network's partnership with the Tea Party Express, a far-right group with a history of virulent racism, to produce a Republican presidential debate: See "CNN Throws a Tea Party," FAIR's latest Action Alert.

Please post copies of your messages to CNN, or comments on this Action Alert, in the comments thread below.