5 Ways to Spot a B.S. Political Story in Under 10 Seconds

I found this article to be spot-on, as well as amusing. This should be required reading. My emphasis is in blue, for the skimmers.


#5. The Headline Contains the Word "Gaffe"

Basically, It's ...
A politician accidentally misspoke in a way that made him or her look silly, and the opponents are pouncing on it. *snip*

"Obama gaffe," "Romney gaffe," "Perry gaffe," "Biden gaffe" -- every party gets it equally. The word just means "embarrassing mistake," and I have literally never heard it used outside of the context of a meaningless, bullshit filler political news story. *snip*

So for instance, during the health care reform debate, President Obama gave approximately 9 million speeches outlining how his plan supposedly would make the system more efficient. Then, in one speech, he stumbled, and instead of saying that the plan would rid the system of inefficiencies, he accidentally said it would bring inefficiencies. This slip of the tongue unleashed a torrent of headlines and blog posts and talk radio rants. On the other side, at a Mitt Romney campaign event, John McCain accidentally mixed up two words that implied Romney liked wasteful government earmarks. Boom! Gaffe!
These are completely information-free news events, and they absolutely dominate political news coverage and analysis. It's like asking your doctor if the X-rays show a tumor, and all he'll talk about is how stupid the radiologist's haircut looks.You're probably asking why routine slips of the tongue continually become news headlines when they have absolutely no impact at all on the candidates' positions or platforms, or what they intend to do in office, or how capable they are of doing it, or anything else. Good farking question! The answer is that many (if not most) people don't follow politics in order to find out who to vote for as part of their duty as citizens living in a democracy. They follow it purely as a form of entertainment. They're like sports fans, rooting for their "team" to win.


#4. The Headline Ends in a Question Mark

Basically, It's ...
A news story so questionable the publication literally felt the need to mark it as such. *snip*

The ugliest use of this is when news aggregators like Matt Drudge use question marks to put forth a bullshit conspiracy theory to avoid having to stand behind it. For instance, when a new book came out claiming President Obama had no valid birth certificate because he was actually a foreigner living under a false identity, Drudge promoted it like this: Book to Reveal Obama's True Identity?

Hey, he's not saying President Obama is living a lie and is secretly a Muslim foreigner sent to infiltrate America from within. He's just asking the question. What's wrong with asking questions? Questions like "Is Matt Drudge a cancer on the asshole of modern journalism?" I don't know. I'm just throwing it out there. You can say absolutely anything as long as you glue a question mark to the end, and nobody can complain. *snip*

...another outlet wondered aloud about McCain's "Secret Dossier on Romney": McCain's Secret Dossier on Romney?
I like how that one doesn't even phrase a whole question -- it's just a few scary, scandalous words with a question mark ("Ron Paul's Covert Sex Commandos?"). *snip*

You can't even rebut it -- how can you rebut a question?


#3. The Headline Contains the Word "Blasts"

Basically, It's ...
A politician or other prominent person has taken to a microphone to say something inflammatory about the other side, usually by rephrasing their own party's talking points over and over.
Politics isn't always a sport. Sometimes it's a schoolyard face-off where all of the press gathers around the arguing kids in a circle, chanting, "FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT!" In politics, of course, they don't punch each other, they "blast" each other with words. And I mean it's almost always described that way. *snip*

What does it mean to you? It means a politician publicly disagrees with the opposing party in a completely expected way that changes nothing about the political landscape or national policy whatsoever. When they get tired of "blasts," sometimes they'll mix things up with "rips" or "lashes out at" or "unloads on," but usually "blasts" is the go-to word. [I'd add "slam" to that list]


#2. The Headline Is About a "Lawmaker" Saying Something Stupid

Basically, It's ...
A low-level politician with no power said something incredibly stupid, and the opposing party is trumpeting it from the mountaintops to make everyone in the low-level politician's party look stupid. *snip*

In every single group of human beings, you have a certain percentage of crazy shitheads. *snip*

Therefore, their existence proves nothing about the group as a whole. And, therefore, it is always wrong to dismiss a political movement by simply pointing at their craziest shitheads and saying, "See! That is what (insert group here) is REALLY thinking." It's a cheap shot, anybody can do it and it's an outright lie. *snip*

So if you see a headline citing something a "lawmaker" said, the first thing you should know is if it's someone with actual power with implications on policy (i.e., a senator stating how he or she is going to vote on upcoming legislation) or if it's simply a nobody who's being held up as the Crazy Shithead of the Week (CSotW).
See, headlines tend to use that word "lawmaker" for a reason -- if he were a U.S. senator, by God it would say "U.S. Senator," and if he were a member of Congress, it'd say he was a congressman. They use "lawmaker" because it makes him seem prominent...*snip*


Even if you disagree and think that these people do have enough power that the stupid shit they say -- rather than the legislation they pass -- should be national news, then how far down the ladder do you go before you can safely let it bypass your indignation circuits? *snip*

Because I'm telling you, these stories exist purely so that supporters of the opposing "team" can get that cheap sugar rush of self-righteousness, and in the process completely turn off the part of their brain that might otherwise consider what anyone in that other party might have to say.


#1. The Headline Includes the Phrase "Blow To"

Basically, It's ...
Neglecting to explain hugely important policy changes in favor of focusing on the drama, and how it affects the personal political careers of the politicians involved.*snip*

And, as smarter commentators have pointed out, there's an even bigger problem with this: It actually implies that the issue itself is completely unimportant. For instance, if the courts overturn some regulation about mercury in the water or Congress blocks car mileage standards, it always gets reported as "A Blow to Environmentalists."

Oh, no, it's not a blow to the people who have to drink the water or breathe the air, or the taxpayers who have to fund the regulations, or the businesses that lose jobs over it. It's either a "blow to environmentalists" or it's not. They specifically make it sound like the effects extend purely to some fringe special interest group and absolutely no one else. *snip*

While You're at It, Look out for ...
It also gets phrased in the other direction. Congress passes a cut in payroll taxes. That's good news for the people paying the taxes, right? Nope, it's a "victory for Obama." Who is affected by billions in stimulus money? One man, apparently. *snip*

And here's the worst part:
I'm telling you from experience, watching political races this way is addictive as shit. You have thousands of years of violent tribal instincts pumping through your veins, itching for a fight. That makes you an easy tool for manipulation, and every good politician and pundit knows how to push those buttons to make people march neatly in formation.

Don't succumb. Or else you'll start supporting the most bullshit legislation just because your guy is for it. Or you'll start knee-jerk rejecting anything the other "team" proposes. Not because it's bad for the country, but because you want to deny them a "win."
It's a poisonous way of thinking. It will lower your IQ, it will rot your ability to think critically about the subjects that really matter. It's bad for you, it's bad for democracy, it's bad for the world. You have to be better and smarter than the person they think you are.

Cracked is an awesome website.

Good stuff.

I usually figure a political story is BS if it paints anything in government as being 'efficient', 'honest', or good for society.

Quote from Danman114 : I usually figure a political story is BS if it paints anything in government as being 'efficient', 'honest', or good for society.

Are you saying Fox News always says the opposite because they don't spread BS?

Quote from larrymoencurly : Are you saying Fox News always says the opposite because they don't spread BS?

I'm not sure where your going with this, but if it makes you feel better I don't watch Fox News (or CNN or MSNBC for that matter).

Quote from Danman114 : I usually figure a political story is BS if it paints anything in government as being 'efficient', 'honest', or good for society.

Quote from larrymoencurly : Are you saying Fox News always says the opposite because they don't spread BS?

Quote from Danman114 : I'm not sure where your going with this, but if it makes you feel better I don't watch Fox News (or CNN or MSNBC for that matter).

It doesn't matter, and it doesn't answer my question.

As for a story that says government is more efficient, the real news media has repeatedly stated that government-run health insurance has lower costs than private health insurance, despite the former being less selective in the people it covers and actually covering people who need medical care. How do you explain this about government efficiency? You know it's true because the private health insurance industry believes it.

cracked -- the sole voice of rational and responsible journalism

This thread was going way OT and was being tugged along by trolling. It's been cleaned up now.

For the record, I agree with all DF said.

Quote from larrymoencurly : It doesn't matter, and it doesn't answer my question. As for a story that says government is more efficient, the real news media has repeatedly stated that government-run health insurance has lower costs than private health insurance, despite the former being less selective in the people it covers and actually covering people who need medical care. How do you explain this about government efficiency? You know it's true because the private health insurance industry believes it.

I'd question how 'private' the private health insurance industry is these days.

If you want free market in health care, check out http://www.surgerycenterok.com/ (imagine a hospital that posts most of its prices online!)

Quote from trancepire : This thread was going way OT and was being tugged along by trolling. It's been cleaned up now. For the record, I agree with all DF said.

Quote from Danman114 : I'd question how 'private' the private health insurance industry is these days. If you want free market in health care, check out http://www.surgerycenterok.com/ (imagine a hospital that posts most of its prices online!)

About half of US health care spending is private. That's one of the highest proportions in the developed world. Similarly, our per capita health care spending is also the very highest. The second most expensive health care system is Switzerland, which is probably Europe's most non-government system, although the insurers are highly regulated (must be nonprofit, must accept everybody at the same prices).

Does SurgeryCenterOK accept everybody, or is it allowed to reject people who aren't in life-threatening emergencies? Because there are many low cost insurers and providers, made possible by cherry picking patients. I'm still waiting for someone who dislikes government-mandated universal health care to name cheaper private US system that accepts all patients, but so far they've failed.

Quote from larrymoencurly : I'm still waiting for someone who dislikes government-mandated universal health care to name cheaper private US system that accepts all patients, but so far they've failed.

The problem with this line of questioning is that is presupposes people that dislike government mandated universal healthcare actually like the current system in place. Virtually everyone I know agrees that the current system is broken so you are basically creating a false-dichotomy.

Quote from larrymoencurly : I'm still waiting for someone who dislikes government-mandated universal health care to name cheaper private US system that accepts all patients, but so far they've failed.

Quote from darkfrog : The problem with this line of questioning is that is presupposes people that dislike government mandated universal healthcare actually like the current system in place. Virtually everyone I know agrees that the current system is broken so you are basically creating a false-dichotomy.

No, it merely asks for evidence so that people can prove that their opposition to universal health coverage isn't purely philosophical or emotional.