unSpun_ Finding Facts in a World of Disinformation - Brooks Jackson [17]
Blaming often occurs reflexively, out of pure partisanship and with little regard for facts. For example, a former Clinton aide, Sidney Blumenthal, suggested that George W. Bush was to blame for the flooding in New Orleans brought about by Hurricane Katrina in 2005. In a widely quoted article for Salon.com, Blumenthal wrote that “the damage wrought by the hurricane may not entirely be the result of an act of nature.” He cited budget cuts by the Bush administration in flood-control projects in Louisiana. As later investigation revealed, however, the major cause of the flooding was the collapse of floodwalls and levees built before Bush took office. An engineering study commissioned by the National Science Foundation concluded that money was not the problem: “The performance of many of the levees and floodwalls could have been significantly improved, and some of the failures likely prevented, with relatively inexpensive modifications of the levee and floodwall system details.” The report’s author, Raymond Seed of the University of California–Berkeley, told reporters there was a “high likelihood” that human error was to blame, and possibly outright malfeasance: “Some of the sections may not have been constructed as they were designed.” All this was underscored in June 2006 when the Army Corps of Engineers released a nine-volume study of the disaster, saying the New Orleans flood-control system failed to work as it was supposed to, and had so many weaknesses it had been “a system in name only.” Whatever blame history will place on Bush’s shoulders for his slow response to the flooding, Blumenthal was simply wrong to blame the president for the flooding itself.
Politicians’ tendency to point fingers was epitomized by a T-shirt slogan we spotted: “When in doubt—blame liberals!” The word “conservatives” could fit just as well. Liberals like to blame “big oil companies” when gasoline prices shoot up, ignoring such factors as clean-air regulations that create local supply bottlenecks, or the surging global appetite for crude oil as China and other countries industrialize. Conservatives typically blame liberals for being “soft on crime,” ignoring the steady rise in the U.S. prison population, to a point where as of mid-2005 nearly one in every 200 U.S. residents is serving time in a federal, state, or local lockup. And of course, whatever party is out of power always blames the incumbent president when the economy goes soft or the stock market tanks, even though the White House has only modest influence on global economic trends and markets.
When you hear people casting blame, take a close look at their facts. It’s good to say to yourself, “That sounds like a one-sided case for the prosecution. What would the defense have to say about it?”
WARNING SIGN: Glittering Generalities
BEWARE OF ATTRACTIVE-SOUNDING BUT VAGUE TERMS—WHAT STUDENTS of propaganda techniques call glittering generalities. Coca-Cola isn’t just carbonated water that’s been flavored and sweetened, it’s “the Real Thing.” United isn’t just an airline emerging from bankruptcy, it’s your access to “the friendly skies.” Allstate isn’t just a colossal insurance company, it’s “good hands.” The U.S. Army isn’t just a military organization, it’s the “path of strength.” The idea is to get you to buy the product without asking too many questions.
Perhaps the most popular glittering generality among politicians is that of mouthing support for the “middle class.” In politics, it’s hard to find a candidate who isn’t for the middle class, because in America so few people think of themselves as lower-class or upper-class. In 2004, Democrat Dick Gephardt promised in his TV ads to “fight for America’s middle class.” John Edwards promised to “target tax cuts to the middle class.” Howard Dean said he’d “strive for greater tax fairness for middle-class working families.” Kerry said he “won’t raise taxes on the middle class.” And the president, not to be out-glittered, said “the