Reporting on Deliberately Misleading Statements

Lost in the shuffle of the debate this week were the deliberately misleading statements made by the candidates. Journalists should not be shy about reporting on the lies, half-lies and misleading statements. Maybe I'm too caught up in my own standards of ethical behavior and integrity  When it comes to our leaders and future leaders it seems to be a matter of course. It seems to be okay to lie and lie again, as long as you get elected.

I was in New Britain for a classic car show. A sign in a toy shop window caught my attention. The sign was promoting the fact that the store sold Boy Scout and Girl Scout Uniforms.  By taking a picture and editing out portions of the sign...by taking the message out of context...I'm misleading you. They do not sell scouts. They sell the uniforms.

There are journalists and other organizations reporting on these issues. But it seems there are so many misleading statements being repeated over and over that most of the electorate believe them. And, what do the lies say about the people who would lead us? It's okay as long as we win? When do the lies stop? Can you place your trust in somebody who lies all the time?

Lost among all the hoopla about who won the debate was the fact that the winner played fast and loose with the truth.

NPR reported on how the candidates manipulated the statistics they used. Sources included FactCheck.org, Politifact.org and the Washington Post.

Romney Goes On Offense, Pays For It In First Wave Of Fact Checks

One of the biggest disputes was over tax cuts. Obama argued that Romney's plan to stimulate the economy includes a tax cut totaling $5 trillion that, Obama said, isn't possible because the Republican nominee is also promising to spend money in other places.
Romney flatly disputed that number. "First of all, I don't have a $5 trillion tax cut," he said.
Who's right? The Washington Post's Fact Checker says the facts on this one are on Obama's side. The New York Times notes that Romney "has proposed cutting all marginal tax rates by 20 percent — which would in and of itself cut tax revenue by $5 trillion."

What set me off was a mailing from Linda McMahon. It says, "Our Seniors Depend on Medicare But, Chris Murphy cut $716 Billion from Medicare." McMahon takes the facts out of context. 

"That amount — $716 billion — refers to Obamacare's reductions in Medicare spending over 10 years, primarily paid to insurers and hospitals," says PolitiFact. So there is a basis for the number. But, it adds, "the statement gives the impression that the law takes money already allocated to Medicare away from current recipients," which is why it gets only a "half true" rating.

Simply reporting on what the political candidate had to say is not enough. Dig a little deeper. Inform your readers, viewers and listeners by putting the politicians comments in full context. (Nobody is selling Girls Scouts...At least, not at this toy store.)

The barrage is only going to intensify over the next five weeks. Spending for 2012 has already surpassed 2008.