Category: Rule: Sin of Omission

Categories
campaigns Rule: Cite The Basis Rule: Cover The Topic Rule: False Choice Rule: Focus Issues Not Politics Rule: Mischaracterization Rule: Mountain Out of Molehill Rule: Sin of Omission

Election 2020 (& General) Pet Peeves

The third Democratic debate is coming up, so it’s a good time to weigh in on some of my long-standing campaign and political news coverage pet peeves, many of which have been driving me crazy for years.  (Apologies for not precisely citing the basis for each one–calling myself out, shame on me!)

“When you’re ‘explaining’, you’re losing.”
This refers to politicians who are correcting or clarifying a position or statement of theirs, usually after it has come under attack from an opponent, or the press.  

News Hour, July 8, 2019 – Politics Monday (video)

Amy Walter (News Hour) invoked it in July when assessing Joe Biden’s explanation of his own comments about working with segregationists to get bills passed, and his ensuing clash with Kamala Harris over busing policy in the first Democratic debate.  Walter referred to the phrase as a “classic line in politics”.  It’s definitely not the first time I’ve heard it.  Certainly, excessive ‘splainin’ by a candidate can take on a pleading quality and grow old quickly–a case of ‘methinks thou dost protest too much’–especially if the explanation is unconvincing.  But the critique can come too quickly or, as in this case, after the media itself has been hammering on the issue, forcing more response by ‘keeping it alive in the news cycle’ which is unfair.  In fierce elections, where attacks are the weapon of choice and the media has a habit of capitalizing on them, how is a candidate supposed to respond? By letting the mischaracterization or inaccuracy go unchallenged?  Methinks not.  Media: Focus on clarifying the issue involved, and let us decide who’s right.  I’m calling this a Mountain Out of a Molehill.  (For more on Kamala & Joe, see my [intlink id=”2248″ type=”post”]previous blog[/intlink].)

“No overarching message.”
I last heard this one from David Brooks (also News Hour).  It is yet another overworked trope of the punditry and concerns a candidate’s lack of concision or ‘branding’ in their messaging on what they stand for.  As above, it is primarily about campaign style, so does not, technically, break the Focus on Issues, Not Politics Rule since it is okay to comment on politics.  But given the media’s predominant ‘cover-the-horse-race’ DNA, I think we’re justified in at least paring down some of the (what seems like incessant) drivel.  Sure, messaging is important, but, for the amount of play this gets, not at the expense of content.  We are long past the point of needing to reduce the many massive, and massively complex, issues we face, to pithy soundbites.  Let’s trade that for a deeper examination of things that really matter.  That is the only way we will be able to shape policy to improve our lives.  I’m calling this out as an OverSimplification and Mountain Out of Molehill.

“message hardened” & “window closed”
Both of these were used in reference to the Special Prosecutor Investigation on Russian interference in the 2016 election, and possible Trump connections to it.  The first phrase was offered as the reason for concluding that there is no recourse to Attorney General William Barr’s pronouncement that Robert Mueller “found no wrongdoing on the part of Trump” in his (Mueller’s) report on the investigation, despite substantial evidence (in the report) to the contrary and multiple, available paths for pursuing that evidence, because Barr’s “message had hardened [in the public’s mind]” and, so, continuing would not be politically viable.  That assessment was repeated by many news outlets as laid out in Margaret Sullivan’s Washington Post piece, which critiqued it. 

The second phrase was used by Bill Maher on his political satire show, Real Time.  Maher, though not a journalist, echoed the oft-used sentiment by others when he said: ~“Mueller failed to be decisive, so the window closed [on getting the true findings of the report].”

This particular type of False Choice really sticks in my craw because it clearly prioritizes a veneer of ‘political viability’ of the issue (unsupportive polls) over its’ underlying substance and importance–in this case, getting to the bottom of potential serious wrongdoing via real, existing legal paths.  The result?  A press short-circuiting the Democratic process, de facto anointing itself as the ultimate arbiter of the decision, rather than the public!

This continues the insidious trend of slowly, incrementally stripping the electorate of their power, ‘dumbing them down’, by sending a message that there is nothing they can do, when, in fact, there is (several congressional & other investigations continue).  It is particularly confounding coming from a press and punditry that relentlessly exposes Trump’s (and others’) lies, digging the public out from under them, only to heap misleading notions like these back on.  Arrgh–have we gone mad?  Call Outs: False Choice (decide quickly, or opportunity is gone) and Focus on Issues, Not Politics.

Campaign strategy: Attack Trump or focus on issues?
This question, posed by The New York Times on 2020 Democratic campaign strategy, is yet another familiar False Choice the press routinely offers up in their parlor game of ‘horse race’ politics. Suggesting the candidates must choose one strategy or the other, but not both, is an OverSimplification.  To be fair, the article uses the question as a ‘jumping off point’ to examine Trump’s divisive racial rhetoric, and how (or whether) it plays in primary vs. general election Democratic strategies, plus, it is answered by strategists and candidates who say: ‘do both’.  (Yea!)  Certainly, Trump’s rhetoric, its affect and importance, are well understood at this point and merit covering. But, again, not at the expense of issues, which continue to get short shrift in our ever increasingly complex world.  I’m just really tired of this emphasis, but we’re going to be seeing a lot more of it, I’m afraid.  Call Outs: False Choice, OverSimplification and Focus on Issues, Not Politics.

Exclusive MSNBC coverage of SC Democratic Convention
The South Carolina Democratic Party granted exclusive rights for video coverage of their June convention to MSNBC over the protestations of 5 other major networks, according to the AP.  The reason given: the candidates would get equal time since their full speeches would be aired.  More than 150 journalists were also credentialed, but–whoa! Is this legal?  It doesn’t seem like it should be.  Call Outs: MSNBC, in the name of journalistic integrity and fairness, you should have refused the offer of exclusive rights and allowed the other networks to Cover the Topic of the SC Democratic convention, along with yourself.

 

Categories
healthcare Rule: Ask The Question Rule: Cite The Basis Rule: Correct Inaccuracies Rule: Cover The Topic Rule: Mountain Out of Molehill Rule: Out of Context Rule: Sin of Omission vaccine autism link

Toxic Vaccines? : Frank Bruni vs. Robert Kennedy Jr.

There is nothing more exasperating than seeing a news report on an important but esoteric subject that includes controversy and competing facts, and having no better sense at the end of it, what the truth is. Such describes the media coverage of vaccine safety which was recently elevated in the news after California made vaccination mandatory for children attending public or private schools.

I am not an expert in medicine, economics, the environment, or any other such field, any more than I am a journalist, and I can’t take time to become any of these just to prove that the media is falling down on the job. This is the whole point of Advance The Dialog–neither I, nor the public, have the time or imperative to get to the bottom of complex issues on our own. We are too busy living our lives. The media, however, does, and their failure to do so puts the public in an untenable position.

A review of my through-the-looking-glass quest for the truth on toxic vaccines proves the point.

The weekend following CA’s new vaccination law, I came across 3 articles that touched on it. Two of them were in the San Jose Mercury News– 1 profiling a CA state senator & pediatrician’s fight for the bill; the other, an editorial by a university professor & health org VP who declared mandatory vaccination a “moral choice”.

The first article discusses sensationalist aspects of the vaccine controversy, including “anonymous death threats” the senator received, his “coolness under fire”, accusations of his taking bribes, and more. The second one asserts that the benefits outweigh the risks, and cites a discredited 1998 study linking mumps vaccine to autism as the main justification used by vaccine-choice advocates. It also cites the book “Deadly Choices” as clarifying the misunderstandings and “flawed science” that fuel the vac-choice movement.

Okay, the first is meant to be just a profile, the second does cite 2 bases to make it’s point. Despite that, science-lite doesn’t cut it since: (a) the issue is too important, and (b) we have no way of verifying what is true (short of reading “Deadly Choices” & other books, thus becoming an expert!). Avoiding the science behind the vaccine controversy over an extended period of time is a Sin of Omission, rife in the media. In addition, mischaracterizing the controversy as ‘safe vaccines vs. no vaccines’ is a False Choice and misleads the public since toxins can be removed from vaccines, making it a ‘safe vaccines vs. unsafe vaccines’ debate.

But the third article was the real whopper. In his July 5, Sunday NYT column, Frank Bruni launched a broadside against Robert Kennedy Jr., and his fight to remove thimerosal (which contains mercury) from vaccines, offering very little substance. In the 1,153 word article, he bestowed a mere 48 words on scientific ‘fact’, writing: “As it happens, aluminum isn’t present in all vaccines and not all mercury is created equal and equally risky”, and “The problem isn’t just that most respectable scientists reject any such connection, but also that thimerosal has been removed from — or reduced to trace amounts in — most childhood vaccines.”

His shortage of facts notwithstanding, Bruni does cite those few things which, if true, sound reasonable, right? Maybe, until you see RFK Jr.’s response, that is.

Kennedy, who is not anti-vaccine, just pro safe-vaccines, writes: “In fact there are massive doses of mercury in some meningitis vaccines – now mandated for all schoolchildren in New York – and in vaccines given to pregnant women, infants, and annually to public school kids.  Mercury remains in mandated pediatric HepB, HIB, and DTap vaccines at double the concentrations deemed safe by EPA.  To [] those vaccines, pharmaceutical companies recently added aluminum adjuvants that [] dramatically amplify the neurotoxicity of the remaining mercury. Finally, pharmaceutical companies merely reduced mercury levels in [] vaccines [for] American children. We continue to send [] pediatric vaccines fully loaded with mercury to children [] in Asia, Africa, Latin America, and the Middle East, a practice that will haunt our country in many dreadful ways.”

He adds: “In defending thimerosal safety, Bruni alludes to the debunked industry canard that the ethylmercury in vaccines is less persistent in the body and therefore less toxic than the heavily regulated methylmercury in fish. However, the best and most recent science shows that ethylmercury is twice as persistent in the brain (Burbacher et al 2005), and 50 times as toxic as methylmercury in fish (Guzzi et al 2012).”

So, far more specific data being cited (and sourced!) than in Bruni’s column. Kennedy takes the lead. And it’s just the tip of the iceberg. Reading the rest of his rebuttal, plus his Mercury & Vaccines page, he offers a mountain of evidence, all sourced, including for his claim: “thimerosal [is] linked to neurological disorders now epidemic in American children, including ADD, ADHD, low IQ, speech development delays, and tics.” Summing up, Kennedy says he and his team “found no published study proving thimerosal safe.”

Bruni sources his claims and position only indirectly: “I sided with the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention”–a Who’s Who of national health orgs, to be sure. But Kennedy answers, citing 4 Federal studies, which, along with an internal whistleblower, “paint CDC’s vaccine division a cesspool of corruption due to scandalous conflicts with the $30 billion vaccine industry.”

Nevertheless, it is hard to dismiss esteemed national orgs such as these. Presumably, they’ve looked into this and have data supporting their position that vaccines are safe. They would have had to, wouldn’t they? If so, then what is it? In this recent Washington Post article, Kennedy claims: “There are 500 studies that we’ve collected and footnoted [in his book Thimerosal: Let the Science Speak], and not a single one of them shows that thimerosal is safe [] except for the 6 studies funded by CDC and the vaccine industry [] that are fraudulent. And we explain how they created the fraud.” Pretty big claims to go unchallenged if they are wrong, wouldn’t you say?

Ironically, Bruni, a science journalist, disparages the safe-vacciners for using the internet for their research, calling it a “sinkhole for the gullible”. He writes: “The anti-vaccine agitators can always find a renegade researcher or random “study” to back them up, …confusing the presence of a website with the plausibility of an argument.” Yet he, a journalist, refuses to do the spadework–his job–for us. Hmm… physician, heal thyself?

You can see the impossibility of all this. It will take more than just citing this book, or that scientist, or that reputable organization, to get at the truth. It will take getting into the science and having the media interview experts, Ask Questions, Correct Inaccuracies, and call out Oversimplifications, Sins of Omission, Mountain Out of Molehills, and the like.

If you don’t believe me, do your own research (and become an expert). You can start with The Big Picture’s interview with Kennedy in the 2-part video below. In it, Kennedy lays out the entire uninterrupted history of the presence of thimerosal in vaccines, exposes compromised studies of its safety, and more. Also, check out the links embedded above and at end. I’ve added notes for easy reference, including quotes from Dr. Martha Herbert & Dr. Mark Hyman (both collaborators on Kennedy’s book), as well as the late Dr. Bernadine Healy– “respectable scientists”, all.

This controversy isn’t going away any time soon. Finding the truth is a process and Advance The Dialog provides tools. There is too much at stake here to ignore. When the debate between those tasked with knowing and verifying the science behind health safety (national health orgs, the news media) and advocates for the public (Kennedy, et al.) is this factually lopsided, I smell a rat.

ATD Rule breaks: Cite the (Scientific) Basis, the others mentioned above, plus Cover the Topic.

Additional Ask the Questions:
o What would the cost be to remove or replace the preservative Thimerosal in vaccines?
o What would the cost be for further ‘susceptibility studies’, as Dr. Bernadine Healy suggested?
o Are there other studies linking autism to something besides vaccines?

*                                *                                *

Additional References

July 2014 Washington Post profile of RFK Jr.’s fight for vaccine safety:
From Dr. Mark Hyman (physician, founder & medical director of the UltraWellness Center): “The bottom line, we shouldn’t be injecting a neurotoxin into pregnant women and children. … the issue isn’t whether thimerosal is causing these problems [but] whether it is toxic and a potential contributor to neurodevelopmental disorders.”
From Dr. Martha Herbert (pediatric neurologist & autism researcher at Harvard): “We know from the biological literature that extremely low doses [of mercury] are harmful. … To me, it’s a no-brainer. Why would you put a neurotoxin in vaccines?”

April 2015 Sharyl Attkisson, “What the News Isn’t Saying About Vaccine-Autism Studies”:
Sharyl Attkisson: “To be clear: no study to date conclusively proves or disproves a causal link between vaccines and autism.”
Contains long lists of scientists who found possible autism link, the institutions and universities where research was done and some of the specific studies

May 2008 CBS’s Sharyl Attkisson interview of Dr. Bernadine Healy:
Bernadine Healy (former physician, cardiologist, head of NIH, president American Red Cross) quotes:
”We do have the opportunity to understand whether or not there are susceptible children — perhaps medically, perhaps they have a metabolic issue, mitochondrial disorder, medical issue — that makes them more susceptible to vaccines, plural, or to one particular vaccine, or to a component of vaccines, like mercury.”
“An [Institute of Medicine] report from 2004 basically said, ‘Do not pursue susceptibility groups. Don’t look for those children who may be vulnerable.’ I really take issue with that conclusion.”
“If you look at the the research that has been done, … the question has not been answered.”

April 2008 Bernadine Healy, US News & World Report, Health:
Healy: “Population studies are not granular enough to detect individual metabolic, genetic, or immunological variation that might make some children under certain circumstances susceptible to neurological complications after vaccination.”

Focus for Health (vaccine/autism site), 37 scientific papers linking thimerosal to autism

National Health Organizations:
Centers for Disease Control
“CDC, FDA, and the National Institutes of Health [NIH]) have reviewed the published research on thimerosal and found it to be a safe product to use in vaccines.”

Food & Drug Administration
“Lacking definitive data on the comparative toxicities of ethyl (contained in thimerosal)- versus methylmercury, FDA considered ethyl- and methyl-mercury as equivalent in its risk evaluation.”
“Blood levels of mercury did not exceed safety guidelines for methyl mercury for all infants in these studies.”
“The FDA is continuing its efforts to reduce the exposure of infants, children, and pregnant women to mercury from various sources.”
Contains Table of Thimerosal Content of Vaccines Routinely Recommended for Children 6 Years of Age and Younger

National Institute of Health
“Today, routinely recommended licensed pediatric vaccines currently being manufactured for the U.S. market are either thimerosal-free or contain markedly reduced amounts of thimerosal. An exception to this is the influenza vaccine, which is available in a variety of formulations, some of which contain thimerosal, while others do not. Thimerosal remains in some vaccines given to adults and adolescents, as well as some pediatric vaccines not on the Recommended Childhood and Adolescent Immunization Schedule.”

Categories
economy minimum wage Rule: Ask The Question Rule: Cite The Basis Rule: Correct Inaccuracies Rule: False Argument Rule: Focus Issues Not Politics Rule: Out of Context Rule: Sin of Omission

Minimum Wage Increase & Jobs

Over the past year, debate over raising the minimum wage has converged on 3 points:

    o its effect on employment  (particularly, on teens)
    o its effect on consumer prices
    o whether the Earned Income Credit (EIC) is a better solution for the poor

The non-partisan CBO’s February 2014 report, which analyzes the impact of raising the MW to $10.10 by 2016, paints a clear picture on the first point- employment, or jobs lost.

The CBO report states:

    . 16.5 million people (10% of total employment) will get a raise*
    . revenue will increase by $31 billion
    . 19% of the 16.5M, are from families below the poverty line
    . 2M of the 16.5M, are teens
    . 500,000 jobs could be lost** (0.3% total employment), the majority by teens

So… 10% with higher wages vs. 0.3% with lost jobs.

Not intending to be insensitive on the jobs number, but that is a difference of 33X of people who will gain vs. lose if the MW is raised.  Focussing on lost jobs without representing the larger number with pay gains, constitutes the biggest running Rule break on this issue- a giant Sin of Omission.

It is true that, in addition to the negative of lost jobs, the overall economic impact of raising the MW is murky.  The CBO says: the deficit will decrease in the short term (good), while the long term is unclear; and factoring in the negative effects of lost jobs, lower business profit, and higher prices, reduces the $31B economic infusion to $2B.  But heavily emphasizing the negative side, to the detriment of the positive (as well as any subtleties coloring either), obscures the full impact of raising the MW on the economy and peoples lives.

Other Rule breaks:

On Feb 18, Eamon Javers & Steve Liesman of CNBC, covered the just released CBO report, and though both, technically, represented the main points correctly, they placed emphasis on jobs lost. Mr. Javers glossed over the highly qualitative nuances of the number (see ** note below), and though Liesman didn’t, he characterized it as the second CBO “slap in the face” on jobs (the first being ACA‘s labor disincentive).  In addition, they each, seperately, broke the Focus on Issues, Not Politics Rule by predicting political controversy over the number.

(No ads;  if no video below, click here, short ad)

True, it was offered as a mere observation by both, but is there anyone left out there who needs reminding of how deadlocked our political process is?  Will giving more play to a self-serving strategy for inaction in Washington benefit us?  Or will we benefit by having as much light as possible shed on solutions to problems that are sinking our country- in this case, the continued destruction and decimation of the middle & lower classes?  This Rule is an important one! Stick to the facts you guys. I looked you both up online- you’re journalists, it’s your job.

*          *          *          *          *          *

On CNBC, March 6, after guest Ron Unz made a compelling case for raising the MW, Michelle Caruso-Cabrera insisted that “the vast % of people on minimum wage are teenagers”.  Kelly Evans should have Corrected that Inaccuracy, coming a full 2 weeks after the report release (she left it to Mr. Unz to do that). A 2009 EPI Report also pegged the % of teenage MW earners low- 20%.  It is hard to know why so many (all on CNBC) have made the claim about teens.  They should all be called on to Cite the Basis!  Even if Caruso-Cabrera intended to say ‘the vast % who will lose their jobs are teens’, a true statement, it would still be Out of Context and misleading since teens comprise only 12% of MWers, and 1.2% of total employment.

(No ads;  if no video below, click here, short ad)

Further, Ms. Evans didn’t Ask the Question:  Why shouldn’t pay increases go predominantly to adults given the chronic wage stagnation that has helped to hollow out the middle class since the 1980‘s?  The CBO says: “employers facing an excess of workers or job applicants tend to favor adults over teenagers”.

To be fair, Mr. Unz did not Cite the Basis for his claim that a higher MW would save $250B in social welfare program spending. A 5 year (2007–2011) Berkeley study of fast-food workers found the cost of public assistance for those families to be $7B a year. Given that and the fact that only 19% of MWers are below the poverty line, it would be nice to learn where that $250B figure comes from.

Finally, consensus on devolving MW decisions to states, though not cited in the CNBC segment, has support from a study described in this NYT article. The case is made for setting MW’s based on regional cost of living standards, citing a 25-30% difference between bigger cities and smaller, more rural ones.

*          *          *          *          *          *

In many news segments, advocates for the MW cited studies, such as the 1990’s neighboring towns study referenced in these Economist & NYT articles and a University of Chicago study mentioned on Charlie Rose (22 min. in), that showed job losses were minimal.  Critics, on the other hand almost never cited specific data to bolster their case, and resorted over and over again to tired, economic supply & demand theory, like guest Lindsey Piegza on CNBC.

(No ads;  if no video below, click here, short ad)

This CNBC seg, the NYT article and many others do refer to ‘mixed studies’. But by detailing one side of the argument while only passively acknowledging the other, we, the public, are implicitly asked to ‘trust the press’s judgement’ and assume the other side is insignificant.

On CNBC though, Kelly Evans is a bit more definitive, saying: “in studies that do show harm [to jobs], the harm doesn’t seem to be massive”.  To that, Ms. Piegza concedes, but then claims that studies are “tempermental, based on the assumptions” and, referring to the Feds recent Beige Book, adds ~“Calif. business owners are very concerned about the MW hike and having to lay workers off”.  Characterizations & anecdotal data like “mixed studies”, and ‘concerned business owners’, are somewhat informative (I don’t doubt the anguish of employers), but these news outlets really need to Cite the Basis for claims of big job losses.  Failure to do so perpetuates a False Argument if the data is not there (CNBC’s case?), or masks a biased press if it is (Sin of Omission by NYT?).  In any case, laying the data out, pro & con, lays the issue to rest.

Other examples of this pattern include a NYT, Great Divide series piece by Arindrajit Dube (an excellent, comprehensive article on MW), who cites his own collaborative study using 2 decades of data that showed ~”no detectable impact on employment”. Another by Gregory Mankiw, claims ~”many studies suggest a higher MW costs jobs” without citing the studies. Argh!

The one concrete exception came from David Neumark on the Feb. 19 News Hour, who cited his own 2007 survey showing negative impact on jobs.  He did not quote statistics from his study (& I did not read it), but he defended it as “empirical” when Thea Lee implicitly Mischaracterized it as “theoretical”, and not “real world”.  Even if the bulk of studies show raising the MW has minimal negative impact on jobs, it is still mandatory for them to be fairly represented & characterized. Cutting corners on some data, compromises the integrity of all.  It, further, erodes trust and promotes apathy, a scourge of our time.

*          *          *          *          *          *

The most overwhelming, real life data supporting a MW increase was reported by the San Jose Mercury News on San Jose, CA’s own year-old, $8 to $10, wage hike.  The numbers tell the story:

    . unemployment was reduced to 5.8% (from 7.6%) ***
    . 40,000 MW workers spent $100 million in local economy
    . 4,000 new MW jobs in the leisure and hospitality industry were created
    . average weekly hours remained stable at 36.5 (vs. 36.9 in 2012)
    . overall business growth was 3%
    . retail business growth rose to 19% (from 15% in 2012)
    . 84,000 new businesses were registered (vs. 75,000 in 2012)

San Jose is in the heart of Silicon Valley, which rebounded from the recession more quickly than many other parts of the country.  Such striking economic data more than piques my curiosity on what other factors contribute to this kind of success.

Notes:

* The CBO assumed a threshold wage of $11.50 for additional workers who would also be affected by a $10.10 MW increase in order to maintain employee pay differential.

** The margin of error for jobs lost is +-0.5M, giving a range:  negligible to 1M, with a “2/3’s chance” assigned to those estimates.

*** At end of 2013, unemployment rates in CA were: Statewide- 8.3%, East Bay- 6.5%, Santa Clara County- 6%, San Francisco-San Mateo-Marin- 4.8%

The second & third MW issues- the EIC & consumer prices- are continued in Part 2.