MediaWatch: June 1992
Table of Contents:
Great Society Landslide
On May 4, Bush spokesman Marlin Fitzwater declared "We believe that many of the root problems that have resulted in inner-city difficulties were started in the '60s and '70s, and they [social programs] failed." Fitzwater's remarks drew a quick response from liberals. Did the media give equal weight to both sides?
To determine the tone and tilt of the networks' reaction, Media-Watch analysts watched every evening news story in May (from ABC's World News Tonight, CBS Evening News, CNN's World News, and NBC Nightly News) on the impact on federal social programs. In 29 news stories, defenders of Great Society programs and advocates for more federal spending outnumbered critics, 79 to 22, or roughly four to one. Thirteen stories aired pro-Great Society sources with zero critics.
CBS had the worst soundbite imbalance, 33-8 (or 80 percent pro-government), followed by ABC (13-3, or 80 percent), NBC (14-4, or 77 percent), and CNN (19-7, or 73 percent). ABC had the most stories that aired liberals with no critics -- five. CBS aired three, and CNN and NBC aired two.
Only three ABC stories featured critics, and they were all President Bush, in two Brit Hume stories and one by Tom Foreman. On May 3, Foreman introduced Bush by declaring: "Some say the President has not recognized any social motive for the violence." Foreman ended by making the riots sound like a Clinton rally: "Increasingly, people are saying that all of the violence had very little to do with Rodney King. Instead, it was the desperate call of a community fighting for change."
BUDGET CUTS? ABC's most fervent defense of the Great Society came on May 4, with a trio of Great Society promotions. Peter Jennings declared: "It won't be easy for the Democrats to argue that it's simply a matter of spending the right amount of money." Then all three reporters said exactly that, despairing over supposed budget cuts without questioning the efficiency of past programs. Rebecca Chase, George Strait, and Bill Blaemore all claimed that Reagan budget cuts worsened the inner cities. Some claims were wrong: Strait bemoaned cuts in federal immunization spending, which increased from $32 million in 1980 to $186 million in 1990.
Some claims were simply recycled press release statistics from liberal interest groups. Take Rebecca Chase: "While the numbers on welfare increased, the value of the assistance fell by more than 30 percent. During the same time, other federal spending in the cities also dropped. Subsidized housing fell 82 percent. Job training, 63 percent. And programs to develop new business, down 40 percent." These numbers, straight from the liberal Center for Budget and Policy Priorities (also cited by Jack Smith on ABC's This Week), don't address which programs were cut, and why.
Had ABC done its own analysis instead of taking the easy, imbalanced way out, it may have even found that some of these programs have grown by 20 or 30 percent just in the last three years. Budget expert Stephen Moore of the Cato Institute contends that funding for public housing increased from $12.5 billion in 1989 to $15 billion in 1992, and that job training funds increased from $17.7 billion in 1989 to $23.2 billion in 1992.
Addressing the issues one at a time reveals that the government recognized failure in these programs and tried to remake them. ABC's borrowed numbers don't explain that in the 1980s, Republicans and Democrats alike moved from massive construction of public housing (which aided developers, not the poor) to direct housing assistance to the poor for already existing housing. Under Bush, rent certificate and voucher spending has skyrocketed 42 percent. The Comprehensive Education and Training Act, or CETA, was found ineffective and phased out by both parties and replaced with the Job Training Partnership Act.
But reporters stepped up to defend the whole menu of programs, effective or not. From Los Angeles on May 12, ABC reporter Beth Nissen mourned the CETA program: "Their bishop says many of those here who sarted out in poverty made it out because of federal anti-poverty programs that flourished in the 1960s." Nissen concluded: "Some of the federal anti-poverty programs were all their critics say -- expensive, troubled, mismanaged, even corrupt. But those who were helped out of poverty say those programs at least showed that the federal government cared. Those still in poverty, they say, are no longer sure who cares."
On May 22, anchor Connie Chung declared CBS would explore only one side: "This year, in the wake of the L.A. riots, the Bush Administration attacked these programs as failures. Tonight, people with a different perspective on Eye on America." Reporter Bob McNamara wistfully looked back: "A generation since America waged war on poverty, and dreamed of a Great Society." Promoting the impression that most of the Great Society was gone, McNamara asserted: "Twenty-five years later, although the programs are long gone, for many people, the Great Society is still making a difference." ABC's Tom Foreman had issued the same false statement a couple of weeks earlier: "In recent years as federal funding for social services has fallen, many have disappeared. Gone are programs for job training, health care, child care, and housing." McNamara and Foreman never specified which programs they were talking about.
THE MAYORS' MARCH. On May 16, the U.S. Conference of Mayors organized a "Save Our Cities" march. Liberal activists were given an uncontested forum, 17 to 0. All three broadcast networks used the same handout statistics. NBC's Henry Champ declared: "According to a Senate committee, federal money to the cities has been rapidly declining. In 1981, Washington gave $37 billion to urban projects. In 1993, the total will be $13 billion. Key programs, those aiding poor families and helping fight crime, drugs, and unemployment, have all suffered cutbacks."
None of the networks explained which programs were included in the numbers. A study by the National League of Cities (NLC), a lobbyist for more federal aid to the cities, claimed aid dropped from $47 billion in 1980 to $21 billion in 1992, a nearly 60 percent reduction. Some reporters used the 60 percent number, but they did not explain the programs the NLC selected. The NLC picked a number of programs that were defunded or decreased because both parties found them ineffective: revenue sharing, the Economic Development Administration, and Urban Development Action Grants (UDAG). UDAG was discontinued because it funded, among other things, the building of Hilton hotels.
OMITTED ARGUMENTS. If the networks had consulted Heritage Foundation expert Carl Horowitz instead of shilling for the mayors, he could have explained a different reality: federal aid to states and cities increased from $95 billion in 1981 to $152 billion in 1991. They failed to point out that Census Bureau figures show total municipal spending went up 26.3 percent in the 1980s in constant 1989 dollars.
The networks also left out an even more important statistic: public employee pay grew dramatically in the 1980s. In a study for the conservative American Legislative Exchange Council, Wendell Cox discovered that average public sector pay rose four times as fast as private sector pay, and that public employees now earn on average 10 percent more than their private counterparts. Municipal government employees received an estimated $5.05 for each $1 increase for private sector employees. Public employee pay is especially important since personnel makes up 60 percent of state and local operating expenditures. Reporters presented the mayors' march as a plea for the poor, and not a plea for higher pay for city bureaucrats.
Instead of detailed analysis of federal aid, reporters settled for quick and easy cheap shots. While overall spending on the poor increased in the 1980s in real terms, reporters, like NBC's Lisa Myers on May 7, simply pulled out the long knives: "It is often said that Ronald Reagan's big budget cuts declared war on the poor. The most that can be said of Georg Bush is that he declared a cease-fire." Reporters may never declare a cease-fire in their war against the Reagan years.
