The Washington Post describes state efforts to make sure poor recipients remain eligible for food stamp benefits as a "loophole…potentially wiping out billions of dollars in savings Congress agreed to last month."
Paul Ryan apparently has some big, bold ideas about how to fight poverty–mostly what the government is doing is all wrong. But why does the Washington Post fail to cite any critics of Ryan, and spend so much time quoting him and other Republicans?
Why does AP still let Calvin Woodward "factcheck" political speeches? Does no one at the news service know what actual factchecking looks like? (If you're coming in late, see FAIR Blog, 10/30/08, 2/25/09, 4/30/09, 1/28/10, 8/31/12.) Woodward's latest venture (1/29/14) into the factcheck genre, following President Barack Obama's State of the Union speech, produced yet more illustrations of what not to do when gauging the accuracy of political speech. Take this item: OBAMA: "We'll need Congress to protect more than 3 million jobs by finishing transportation and waterways bills this summer. But I will act on my own to slash […]
This week on FAIR TV: Media should take a side on who's causing the government shutdown. CBS Evening News wonders what happened to global warming. And Brian Williams can't believe the stunning shift from Iran on nuclear weapons–so who was this Brian Williams guy who was was reporting on the "new line" from Iran years ago? Take a look:
OK, so maybe this headline is slightly unfair, but it seemed like a good way to capture the essence of a USA Today story (9/18/13) about the fight over food stamps. As you may already know, House Republicans are looking to cut some $40 billion from the SNAP program, otherwise known as food stamps, over the next 10 years. It's not unusual for politicians to disagree; one would hope that journalism might intervene on the side of the facts. But here's how USA Today's Paul Singer presented the issue: The cost of the federal food stamp program has exploded […]
The new student loan law lowers rates–and then, almost certainly, raises them in the near future. But hey–at least it's bipartisan.