Like with any article posted to or linked to by CNBC, there lies inherent a certain amount of bias and spin on a particular story, so it came as no surprise when the headline "Affluent Plan to Spend Less If Obama Is Elected" revealed an article which was very far slanted toward the right and one in which the future of our economy perceivably rested solely upon the defeat of the incumbent president. What I had a problem with most, however, was the skewing of the facts which, at latest check, had been conveniently reworded to sound more balanced and true.
The original version insinuated that 43% of wealthy Americans would spend less if president Obama was re-elected, whereby alerting all independents or questionable voters that if they hoped for a recovery spurred by those who own businesses and those who direct the most wealth in our nation, that Romney is the only valid choice come November. It continued on to say that a massive 43% would spend less but "just 39%" said it would have no impact on their spending. I'm no number wizard, but I'm pretty sure those two numbers are too close to really differentiate by insinuating one is massive while the other is insignificant. I don't care how you spin it.
To insinuate that more than 1/3 of wealthy Americans is a negligible percentage is just as misleading and irresponsible as insinuating that if Obama is elected nearly half of the wealthy population will bring their spending to a halt and we, as Mr. and Mrs. Norris put it so eloquently, will "plunge into a thousand years of darkness."
The facts from this poll, even though it was obviously conducted by a biased organization, reveal what the GOP doesn't want the public to know--Obama being re-elected will have a much less broad and severe impact on the economy than they want it to seem. If it were up to Paul Ryan and his painstaking research and fact-proving, America would know about Obama's terrible tax plan and would realize that if he and Romney were elected all of America could rest comfortably in knowing that the closing of the tax loopholes would mean everyone would profit and everyone would see a lower tax bill. "Trust" him.
Well, I don't trust Paul Ryan because I can complete basic math operations (thanks elementary school!); much in the same way that I can't rely on a biased article to provide unbiased facts, even if it is from a biased polling population. And the revision of the article clearly demonstrates it. Comments on the reposts of the article speak a lot to the anger so many felt when reading the article and realizing that they were being blatantly misled.
The article has since been revised to read that 43% of wealthy Americans will spend more than they are now if Romney is elected, while "only 18%" will spend more if Obama is elected, with the remaining 39% being unaffected by the election. The 82% vs. 57% says one thing about wealthy Americans and our economy as a whole right now: people are waiting to spend money, especially the rich, and they're waiting not for a particular political party to take over the offices, but for some type of leadership to regain control of the government as opposed to the outrageous and cantankerous squabbles which permeate congress. Any kind of single direction is better than a roundabout government which collapses in on itself when it comes time for all fiscal budget decisions.
The lesson lies in the facts: pay particular attention to wording, and look at the credibility and representation of your source to see whether there stands any benefit to be had by a particular article reading a certain way. Certainly Wall Street bankers and a conservative television and internet network will benefit from the election of a conservative and capitalistic candidate, and certainly a writer for that organization, adept at spinning and manipulating, will be skilled and motivated enough to tweak a particular story just enough to be truthful while still a bit misleading. And therein lies America, our economy, our politics, and our population, in a nutshell.
No comments:
Post a Comment