On Friday, Oct. 14, the Albuquerque Tribune ran a story by Martin Crutsinger of the Associated Press, It started at the bottom of the front page.
"Retiree checks to get a 4.1% bump" was the headline. A sub-head noted that the Social Security COLA might not offset seniors' higher Medicare premiums and energy costs. The story continued inside, on page 9, to go into detail.
Three paragraphs from the bottom, in backgrounding, Crutsinger noted that President Bush "had hoped to get Congress this year to pass" an overhaul. And he continued, in the next--to-last paragraph:
"It would have bolstered Social Security finances to deal with a looming funding crisis when 78 million baby boomers begin retiring...."
That's perfectly incorrect. Perfectly. The Bush proposal would not have "bolstered" the system. Nor was there or is there a "looming funding crisis" in Social Security. (That is close to an accurate description of Medicare.)
If, in fact, the Bush proposal had bolstered Social Security finances, it might have garnered more support in the Congress. (In the last paragraph, the reporter notes it never "attracted widespread support" there.)
Question - how does this stuff happen? Where do reporters find this kind of misinformation? (A White House position paper, maybe?) Why doesn't the reporter exercise his critical faculties? And why don't editors spot these big, fat errors?
Finally, what is the effect on readers? Won't those who read to the end believe what they read? (It was done so matter-of-factly that I almost bought it.)
Beats me.