The media myth about the cost of Obama's inauguration

[Joanne98]

Did you hear that "some are saying" Barack Obama's inauguration will cost "$160 million," which is $100 million more than George W. Bush's last swearing-in? That's the tale the crew at Fox & Friends was telling on January 15. "Why does the thing have to cost so much?" demanded co-host Gretchen Carlson. "I don't get it. George Bush spent $42.3 million and that was just four years ago." She wondered why Obama needed "another $100 million" for his celebration.

The Fox News crew wasn't alone. The Internet and cable news were filled with chatter about the jaw-dropping (and unsubstantiated) number suddenly attached to Obama's swearing-in. But the sloppy reporting and online gossip about the price tag illustrated what happens when journalists don't do their job and online partisans take advantage of that kind of work.

It also highlighted the type of news you can generate when making blatantly false comparisons. In this case, it was the cost of the Obama and Bush inaugurations. The connection was unfair because the Obama figure of $160 million that got repeated in the press included security costs associated with the massive event. But the Bush tab of $42 million left out those enormous costs. Talk about stacking the deck.

The misinformation first arrived in the form of an underreported newspaper article in America, and then one in London. Between them, and thanks to furious transatlantic online linking, the reports gave birth to the story that Obama's inauguration was going to cost nearly four times what the country spent on Bush's bash in 2005 -- that the Obama inauguration would cost almost $120 million more.

http://mediamatters.org/columns/200901170003?f=h_top

[azmouse]

1. What a shock that Faux news would lie about something...

I would expect Obama's inaugural would cost a bit more because more people will be in DC and security will be tighter.

[rurallib]

4. We so badly need a new news media.

[proud2BlibKansan]

5. No matter what your primary issue is,

media reform needs to be your #2 issue.

[rurallib]

11. Media reform has been #1 with me for a long time.

[KansDem]

2. You get what you pay for...

Considering what that $42 million "bought" for Americans; it could have been $4.20 for Bush's second "inauguration" and still be too much.

[nc4bo]

3. So what if it costs 160 mil. WE have waited 8 long years to exhale...

I think we've earned this par-tay and those who voted for Barack deserve to rejoice and celebrate an amazing moment in history.

So let them talk smack, this is OUR party and America's celebration, not just for us but also for the world.

GOBAMA.

[naaman fletcher]

6. on the one hand..

Each successive inauguration has been more expensive than the last, which should be expected. On the other hand, it would have been nice if Obama just had a private dinner for close friends and donated the rest to charity.

[treestar]

7. Who said the world changed after 911?

These morans dare to question expensive security measures after 911? After they've been going on about it for 8 years?

[BlooInBloo]

8. (shrug) Obama-haters will believe anything, just to get their digs in.

[Libertyfirst]

9. I don't give a damn if it costs 250M. Saving my country is worth it.

[zbdent]

10. wait ... are you saying that they lied about the American auto worker making $73 an hour

vs the Japanese auto worker making $25 an hour, too?

Damn that liberal media!

[underpants]

12. What is "The Crawford Ranch" costing us?

Anyone?

[leftofthedial]

13. Why is it about 3000 words into this before they tell us

the actual apples-to-apples cost comparison?

$45 million is still absurd. That would provide the median income for over 1000 families of four.

But we're gonna have our big party in DC instead.