Countering journalism's "Are you better off?" cliche

The headline at the Center for Economic and Policy Research rather speaks for itself: " 'Are Americans Better Off Today Than They Were Four Years Ago?' The Question That Exposes Incompetent Reporters."

Still, I'd prefer to frame the subtitle a bit differently: "Gee I don't know, Mr. Reporter, but is it possible for you to dive deep into your shallow journalistic instincts and ask an even dumber question?"

We're not in a court of law, "yes" or "no" answers can't be demanded, yet political media thrive on the 10-second soundbite, which is tantamount to the former. For a Democratic pol, the answer can only be, "You bet your ass they are, even if this exposes me to Republican ridicule--you know, the same Republicans who, for the past four years, have labored tirelessly on behalf of the poor, the disadvantaged, the unemployed."

Ah but there, there's a problem. The sarcasm would be lost on those five or six remaining "swing voters" in those five or six remaining swing states.

Better, I suppose, to just say, "You bet your bottom," and leave it at that, subsequent to adding, naturally, "Which Americans are you asking about? Or do you, Mr. Reporter, think of Americans as some sort of monolithic collectivity? ... one enormous, undifferentiated proletariat? ... oppressed victims at the whimsical beck and call of soviet puppet masters? ... hapless objects of inexorable forces of history? Say, what kind of commie are you, anyway?" 

If that doesn't back him off, nothing will. Sure, it's just more sarcasm, but it's "nuanced" sarcasm. This will confuse and fluster him and leave him only the refuge of the next dumb question on his lapidary list.

Comments

[Robert Lipscomb]

One aspect of "the big lie" gets lost. Of course you don't see it coming. "Obama is gutting Medicare." "Kerry is not a war hero." "Things are worse now than in 2008."

Really? And of course, the victim's natural response is that nobody will believe THAT.

But they do.

When journnalists repeat the question, they legitimize the basis of the question.

But Romney is playing with fire, and Big Dawg Clinton and Obama and the Chicago guys ain't no Kerry. A week ago, Obama would have been defensive in focusing on Bush's disaster. Now Romney has forced Obama and Clinton into "defending their honor".

Good times ... good times. :-)

[Turgidson]

Steve Benen made a good post about the "better off" canard. The proper analogy here is that the Democrats are firefighters and the GOP were the arsonists.

We can ask whether a firefighting team used enough water pressure, had enough boots on the ground, etc. just like we can have a discussion about whether Obama's recovery measures were robust enough, targeted to the right parts of the economy, etc. The choice ideally being between two teams of firefighters who both intend to employ policies aimed at putting out (and preventing) fires, but by different means.

But the debate we are having is between the firefighters and a bunch of arsonists who are standing off to the side criticizing the firefighters' use of water and advocating the use of kerosene instead, THEN when the fire is extinguished, asking the homeowner if the house is in better shape than it was right before the fire (that they set a match to) started, and blaming the fire itself and the ensuing destruction on the firefighters.

It's absurd and informed people should see through it....but my prediction is that about 48% will vote Arsonist 2012.

[SueMe]

Great analogy, Turgidson. Might use it against my tea-partying relative's arguments.