More on Coyote's Media Theorem

Back in January, I wrote about both ethanol and the stimulus bill, observing:

I have decided there is something that is very predictable about the media:  they usually are very sympathetic to legislation expanding government powers or spending when the legislation is being discussed in Congress.  Then, after the legislation is passed, and there is nothing that can be done to get rid of it, the media gets really insightful all of a sudden, running thoughtful pieces about the hidden problems and unintended consequences of the legislation

My emerging theorem about the media is that they want to be on the record as having predicted problems with legislation, but that for leftish legislation they personally support, they defer their most insightful analysis until after the law has passed.  That way, their favored legislation gets on the books, but they are also on the record as having spotted potential problems and can make the argument later that they were not rubes or useful idiots.

We are seeing this yet again, as the New York Times questions some obvious flaws with the Dartmouth health savings data (ht Insty)

Of course, the article misses the most obvious point -- while the Dartmouth data was certainly used to try to sell Obamacare, nothing in the actual legislation does anything to capture these supposed potential savings.  The $700 billion in waste number is more of a sort of happy thought that lets politicians sign the ridiculously expensive bill while pretending that some mythical savings are somehow available in the future through unidentified mechanisms to pay for the program.


  1. anon:

    "some mythical savings are somehow available in the future through unidentified mechanisms to pay for the program."

    The same fairy dust that will replace fossil fuels will provide the health care savings.

  2. Sean:

    Your posting brings up several things. It seems the Brits did not really get rolling on skepticism on climate change in their media until after they passed a law on a snowy October evening in London until 2008. The US has not passed such a law so its media continue to be lapdogs to the liberal AGW agenda. Maybe they will get to it this fall when its completely hopeless and their articles are irrelavent. I've often maintained that since they are irrelavent that its no wonder they are going under. On the other hand, newspapers and some of the big three broadcast networks are doing so badly that they may be beholding to people at investment banks for loans to cover their losses. It's like Milo Minderbinder the deal maker in Catch 22 who covered his losses in Egyptian cotton by bombing their own base and getting paid by the enemy.

  3. Sam L.:

    I suggest we rename the MSM as the MPM--Mouth Piece Media.