Dean Baker is fond of castigating media persons for “mind reading” when they tell readers what various parties believe or think, even when the parties in question are on record as saying that they believe or think whatever belief it is that the writer ascribed to them.
“Republicans think that in a robust economy the social safety net could be dealt with by non-governmental charity organizations,” for instance, will instantly draw a charge of mind reading from Dean Baker, even though dozens of Republicans have stated that belief publicly over the last fifty years.
I would have no issue with Dean Baker for asserting that the belief is idiotic, but stating that Republicans believe it is certainly not mind reading.
Then on Monday he himself stated that, “Republicans in Congress are explicitly using the federal tax code to target states controlled by Democrats,” with the most recent income tax law. I wrote to him in the comments, noting his use of the word “explicitly,” and politely asked him to tell me the name of the Republican(s) who told him they were doing that or, I asked, “are you doing some mind reading here?” He deleted the comment.
Then yesterday he accuses the Washington Post of mind reading, saying,
“It's good we have the Post to tell us what the White House really believes.”
The entirety of his piece was not to challenge the theory advanced by the White House, but merely to castigate the Post for mind reading after he started the piece by saying that, "I thought it was just a way to give a middle finger to low-income people for getting government aid," which is, of course, clearly not mind reading.
I saw your comment there. I thought the whole post /comments as sarcastic, and not 'journalism'. I've given up on reading politician's minds, as a lost cause and waste of energy. Besides, their skulls are too thick anyway.
ReplyDelete