I followed a link yesterday (can't remember where from) to an article berating the media about bias. The article reported that Bush's inauguration in 2005 cost $42.3 million and the media at that time berated everyone involved about how expensive and excessive it was. However, the article I read continued, Obama's inauguration is going to cost $160 million, almost 4 times as much, and no one seems to be batting an eyelid.
Something didn't feel right about it, and today I found out why.
The costs for Bush's inauguration do not include security. Tradition has always been that security costs were not included in the figure, because security is something that's going to happen anyway. Even if you threw away all the trappings and boiled the thing down to the basic ceremony, the security costs are still going to be expensive. The figures being quoted for Obama's inauguration include the security costs, so as a result you are comparing two completely different figures. A recent article in the New York Times said of the 2005 inauguration that "the federal government and the District of Columbia spent a combined $115.5 million, most of it for security, the swearing-in ceremony, cleanup and for a holiday for federal workers" [emphasis mine].
Add that $115.5 million to the $42.3 million, and you have a grand total of $157.8 million, not that much different to the figure being quoted for Obama.
And we'll ignore for the moment the dubious language being used in the reports on the costs of Obama's inauguration. "and when he's done ... the price tag for his swearing-in festivities could approach $160 million." Did you see that? Could approach. The costs "could approach" a billion too. I could approach a millionaire, but that doesn't make me one, now does it?
I hate the media. I want my media to be report fact, not hyperbole, not baseless opinions. I'm a smart man, I want you to report to me what actually is happening, and then I'll make up my own mind thanks.
Fuckers.
Source information: http://mediamatters.org/columns/200901170003
Something didn't feel right about it, and today I found out why.
The costs for Bush's inauguration do not include security. Tradition has always been that security costs were not included in the figure, because security is something that's going to happen anyway. Even if you threw away all the trappings and boiled the thing down to the basic ceremony, the security costs are still going to be expensive. The figures being quoted for Obama's inauguration include the security costs, so as a result you are comparing two completely different figures. A recent article in the New York Times said of the 2005 inauguration that "the federal government and the District of Columbia spent a combined $115.5 million, most of it for security, the swearing-in ceremony, cleanup and for a holiday for federal workers" [emphasis mine].
Add that $115.5 million to the $42.3 million, and you have a grand total of $157.8 million, not that much different to the figure being quoted for Obama.
And we'll ignore for the moment the dubious language being used in the reports on the costs of Obama's inauguration. "and when he's done ... the price tag for his swearing-in festivities could approach $160 million." Did you see that? Could approach. The costs "could approach" a billion too. I could approach a millionaire, but that doesn't make me one, now does it?
I hate the media. I want my media to be report fact, not hyperbole, not baseless opinions. I'm a smart man, I want you to report to me what actually is happening, and then I'll make up my own mind thanks.
Fuckers.
Source information: http://mediamatters.org/columns/200901170003
- Current Location:Reynard St, Melbourne, Australia
- Current Mood:
pissed off
Profile
halloranelder- Random
- grey/blue
Comments
I hate the media. I want my media to be report fact, not hyperbole, not baseless opinions. I'm a smart man, I want you to report to me what actually is happening, and then I'll make up my own mind thanks.
Yeah, but they're the media. Their job isn't to make you think. It's to make you not think. )That way your brain will turn to mush and you'll enjoy the crap that passes as mainstream entertainment more easily.)
they are written by people and they will be biased when writing even if they try not to be. it may be due to wording or they my be very blatent with it. and some times they do mean to be.
people always put their own feelings into wha they do... always have and will