Leave it to the New York Times (10/7/11) to find a guy collecting unemployment who opposes the extension of unemployment benefits. He's "Dan Tolleson, a researcher and writer with a Ph.D. in politics...whose last good job was working for a group that aims to replace the income tax with a national sales tax."

But don't think reporter Shaila Dewan picked some unrepresentative oddball to highlight just to make a political point about "how divisive the question has become of providing a bigger safety net to the long-term jobless." Oh no--quite the contrary:

Even among those struggling to find work, Mr. Tolleson is not alone in his views. In a recent survey of the unemployed by Rutgers University, more than one in four respondents was opposed to renewing the current extended unemployment benefits. Three out of five said recipients should be required to take training courses.

But when you click on that link, you find that the Rutgers survey is not "of the unemployed"--the sample includes recently jobless people who are currently working, and of those respondents who are jobless right now, a large majority haven't gotten unemployment benefits in the past year. So how many people are like Donald Tolleson, collecting benefits that they don't the government should be giving them? Maybe none--the results aren't broken down that way.

Further, the survey asked about whether "longer and higher benefits from Unemployment Insurance" were a good idea in the context of "ideas that are being considered by government officials to help bring down high unemployment." So if you supported extending unemployment benefits because they would be good for the unemployed but didn't think they would help bring down unemployment, should you answer yes or no?

The question was asked in a more straightforward way by CNN the last time President Obama signed a bill extending benefits (12/17-19/10). Questioned whether they favored or opposed "an extension of unemployment benefits for workers who lose their jobs," 76 percent of a sample of adults nationwide were in favor, with only 22 percent opposed. Could it be that extending unemployment benefits is not as "divisive" as the New York Times would like you to think?

WashingtonMonthly.com blogger Steve Benen (Political Animal, 8/12/09) has words for corporate pundits lambasting Barack Obama's "Attention to Detail" as "going "into the weeds":

A few weeks ago, MSNBC's First Read had an item questioning whether President Obama "knows too much" about healthcare policy. The piece complained that the president is willing to offer Americans details about reform....

The Wall Street Journal's Jonathan Weisman raised a similar concern today, arguing that Obama cares too much about policy details....

This, apparently, is criticism, not praise. The president who inherited a devastating economic crisis is interested in U6 numbers--a measure that includes the unemployed, those who are working part-time but want full-time employment, and those who've simply given up--and this, we're told, is somehow evidence of excessive interest in detail.

Benen thinks that too-skeptical-for-the-Washington Post Dan Froomkin "has this just right" when writing that "there are all sorts of legitimate reasons to be concerned about Obama's approach to governing" but "intellectual curiosity is one thing journalists in particular should celebrate, not sneer at."

In Benen's closing thoughts he really "can't help but wonder if" reporters might simply "prefer a more superficial president because they have a more superficial perspective?"

A Tiny Revolution blogger Bernard Chazelle (8/2/09) thinks it's  possible that "people fail to appreciate how tough it is to run the government." As evidence, he offers "two questions Treasury officials and politicians will soon have to answer":

• Should a Connecticut trader receive $100 million in executive pay from a bank that would be dead had it not received $45 billion in taxpayer money? Apparently, the guy's genius was to drive up the price of gas to $4 a gallon. Does he deserve 100 million bucks from you for that?
• Should unemployment benefits be extended for 1.5 million jobless Americans who will otherwise run out of money by the end of the year and fall into destitution and, sometimes, homelessness?

Chazelle notes that "the New York Times features both stories on its front page, but never connects the two" --their job "explaining the complexity of the issue" encapsulated by him as, "If the trader fails to be paid, it'll get truly ugly: The guy will go trade somewhere else!"

"On the other hand," writes Chazelle, "if mom and dad don't get their unemployment benefits, things are not quite nearly as bad: Only their kids will die." Leading him to sarcastically exclaim, "Thank god I am not in government having to make tough choices like that!"

Read the FAIR magazine Extra!: "The Recession and the 'Deserving Poor': Poverty Finally on Media Radar—but Only When It Hits the Middle Class" (3/09) by Neil deMause.