Here's a shock. It seems Rudy Giuliani habitually mauls facts.
So says one notorious perpetrator of media liberalism -- The New York Times -- yet, such steadily mounting reporting across the journalistic board is not so much "liberal" as it is, simply, factual, which is what confounds and frustrates the right and makes it so intolerably cranky. Facts can be a tough monkey to throw off one's back.
"In almost every appearance as he campaigns for the Republican presidential nomination," writes the NYT's Michael Cooper, "Rudolph W. Giuliani cites a fusillade of statistics and facts to make his arguments about his successes in running New York City and the merits of his views." Such as ...
Discussing his crime-fighting success as mayor, Mr. Giuliani told a television interviewer that New York was "the only city in America that has reduced crime every single year since 1994." In New Hampshire this week, he told a public forum that when he became mayor in 1994, New York "had been averaging like 1,800, 1,900 murders for almost 30 years." When a recent Republican debate turned to the question of fiscal responsibility, he boasted that "under me, spending went down by 7 percent."
A problem, though. In fact, several problems, point by point: "All of these statements are incomplete, exaggerated or just plain wrong."
For instance, another major American city claims to have reduced crime every year since 1994: Chicago. New York averaged 1,514 murders a year during the three decades before Mr. Giuliani took office; it did not record more than 1,800 homicides until 1980. And Mr. Giuliani’s own memoir states that spending grew an average of 3.7 percent for most of his tenure; an aide said Mr. Giuliani had meant to say that he had proposed a 7 percent reduction in per capita spending during his time as mayor.
In her boss's defense, spokeswoman Maria Comella told the Times: "The mayor likes detail, and uses it frequently on the campaign trail in ways the other candidates don’t. And at the end of the day, he is making points that are true." Except, of course, they aren't -- something of the Orwellian logical fallacy of arguing conclusions based on self-admitted faulty premises.
Reaching for journalism's holy grail of obligatory fairness, the Times briefly notes that "in recent days, Mr. Giuliani seems to be taking greater care to be precise." Well, a little, maybe. At times. Not always. He hasn't quite nailed this precision business, which the Times then promptly resinks its teeth into. For instance ...
"Last weekend, speaking about his belief in supply-side economics, Mr. Giuliani said, 'I lowered, argued for lowering, and got the hotel occupancy tax lowered by 33 percent. And I was collecting $200 million more from the lower tax than the city had been collecting from before I was mayor from the higher tax.'"
But dang it, there was a problem with that, too. "In fact, the increase in revenues from the hotel occupancy tax was just over a quarter of what Mr. Giuliani asserted -- the city’s hotel tax revenues grew by roughly $58 million during his term, according to the city’s Independent Budget Office -- and a booming economy, as well as the reduction in crime Mr. Giuliani helped produce, probably played a part." Probably.
The article goes on -- blow by bloody blow -- referencing other Giuliani "misstatements": on the actual degree of NYC's police-force expansion, on the true economic cost of frivolous law suits, on the quality of American health care vs. contemptible "socialized medicine" (a topic I wrote about in October), on his deficit-to-surplus accomplishments, and on others' miserable crime-fighting records compared to his magnificent dragon-slaying. They're all sprinkled with pure, Grade-A b.s.
It's fun reading -- and not one bit surprising to anyone who's listened to Rudy's free-wheeling rhetoric of literally unbelievable heights.
Also unsurprising are comments in the article's wrap-up, courtesy that professional mangler of language and logic, Frank Luntz. "When he talks about New York," explains Fred, sounding suspiciously like Hizzoner's spokeswoman, "people see it, and they feel it, and if a number isn’t quite right, or is off by a small amount, nobody will care, because it rings true to them."
Oh well. Ho-hum. That's democracy for you. Let us not quibble over the factual basis of arguments made to elect a people's representative, as long as those arguments "ring true" -- meaning as long as they fit the people's preconceptions.
Recent Comments