ABC Disguises Democratic Activist as Victim of Mean-Spirited GOP
Good Morning America's Claire Shipman on Thursday tried to disguise a Democratic activist as just a jobless American who would be hurt by Republican failure to extend unemployment benefits. Shipman sympathetically recounted that Edrie Irvine, who she didn't explain spoke at a Nancy Pelosi press conference on Wednesday, "never thought her very livelihood would depend on a political debate in Congress."
A graphic reading "unemployed" appeared onscreen as Irvine complained, "They are talking about tax cuts for the rich and are holding people like me hostage." Who is Ms. Irvine? According to her bio on the leftist Democracy For America web page, she's a "tree-hugging, bleeding-heart, ACLU-card-carrying progressive liberal and damn proud of it!"
On December 1, Irvine appeared with Nancy Pelosi at a press conference. Pelosi enthused, "Thank you very much, Edrie, for your generosity of spirit to share your personal story with us." On October 2, Irvine also appeared at the liberal One Nation rally and spoke. (One Nation was coordinated by the AFL-CIO and the SEIU, among others.) Shouldn't Shipman have mentioned any of this?
Video after the break
At the rally, Irvine attacked Republicans: "Help me, and all the others like me, send a message to all those politicians that use us as a token in their political battles, who scapegoat us, who say we have to pee in a cup. Well I’ll tell you Mr. Hatch, I’ll pee right after you do."
Shipman even showed a clip of Pelosi's press conference, but still failed to inform viewers that Irvine spoke there: "This press conference in Washington drew hundreds of unemployed workers from around the country." Perhaps this shouldn't be surprising. Shipman's husband is Jay Carney, communications director to Vice President Joe Biden.
The ABC journalist made no effort at all at balance. Every talking head featured supported extending unemployment benefits. Another woman, Angel Garland, lobbied, "I'm raising my son. Single mom. I'm thinking to myself, what will I do? You know? Where will I go?"
It apparently didn't occur to Shipman to highlight a small businessman who might have to lay off workers, should the standoff between unemployment and extending the Bush tax cuts go unresolved.
[Thanks to MRC intern Matt Hadro for the video.]
A transcript of the December 2 segment, which aired at 7:04am EST, follows:
ROBIN ROBERTS: And what you and Jon were just referring to, George, you can talk about the gridlock over extending those long-term unemployment benefits. It's hitting families so incredibly hard. Some are going to be cut off today. And Claire Shipman is also in Washington and has much more on that. Good morning, Claire.
CLAIRE SHIPMAN: Good morning, Robin. This is one of the most explosive issues that Congress is arguing over. Democrats say that millions of Americans are going to be affected in the next few weeks. And that not extending those benefits will hurt the economy. Republicans say those extended benefits are just too expensive unless they're paid for. Edrie Irvine never thought her very livelihood would depend on a political debate in Congress.
EDRIE IRVINE (Unemployed): They are talking about tax cuts for the rich and are holding people like me hostage.
SHIPMAN: But she and about two million other unemployed Americans are caught up in a Capitol Hill showdown.
UNIDENTIFIED CONGRESSMAN: Where, I ask, is the moral outrage?
SHIPMAN: And are about to have a profound impact on the economy. The labor department is predicting a sort of benefits loss tsunami. By December 11th, 635,000 unemployed will lose benefits. By Christmas, it will be $1.6 million, without benefits. Almost two million people by the new year. And at the end of January three and a quarter million will be cutoff. This press conference in Washington drew hundreds of unemployed workers from around the country.
NANCY PELOSI: This is something that is not only good for these families. It's the right thing to do, during a downturn in our economy.
SHIPMAN: Most states fund at least 26 weeks of unemployment benefits. But the federal government has been offering an additional 73 weeks of help. Congressional Republicans now argue the cost is too high and that in order to be extended, other budget cuts need to be found. But many economists argue, unemployment benefits actually help the economy because the unemployed have to spend that money immediately.
MARK ZANDI (Chief economist, Moody's Analytics): The emergency funding insurance program puts $5 million to $6 million, into the economy each and every month. So, you tally that over the year, that's $80 billion. That's a lot of money.
SHIPMAN: And a critical safety net, for people like Angel Garland, unemployed for almost a year.
ANGEL GARLAND: I'm raising my son. Single mom. I'm thinking to myself, what will I do? You know? Where will I go?
SHIPMAN: You know, it's estimated over the course of this financial crisis, these federal benefits have kept some three million Americans out of poverty. And by the way, George, retailers are worried, too. The holiday season isn't the time when they want to see less spending power in the economy.
STEPHANOPOULOS: That's right. They're afraid that could damage the potential of the economic recovery.
— Scott Whitlock is a news analyst for the Media Research Center. Click here to follow him on Twitter.
- Scott Whitlock's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
They are talking about tax
Submitted by Walker01049 on Thu, 12/02/2010 - 12:48pm.
They are talking about tax cuts for the rich and are holding people like me hostage. People like you...... Should be looking for a job. By the way, not tax cuts but tax hikes on employers who are not hiring due to the fact that they do not know what their future financial picture looks like.Don't get the point of this
Submitted by StarAZ on Thu, 12/02/2010 - 12:51pm.
She may be looking for a job. Millions of people depend on these payments right now--and will spend them in the stores, helping matters. Try living on this--you won't like it. Today they chirped up in the AZ Republic that all was great again--guess they got bored with the same sad stuff every day. I don't see the greatness. Oh--they did add it will be "years" before unemployment is eased. Yeah--we noticed.,
The points is that ABC tried
Submitted by Scott Whitlock on Thu, 12/02/2010 - 12:58pm.
The points is that ABC tried to pass off a liberal, Democratic activist as just a regular, unemployed American. Clearly, she's anything but. Would ABC find a NRA/Christian Coalition member and not highlight their agenda? Not likely.
— Scott Whitlock is the senior news analyst for the Media Research Center. Click here to follow him on Twitter.
Naive Much?
Submitted by ckc1227 on Thu, 12/02/2010 - 1:57pm.
If she's been unemployed for a year or more, she's not looking for a job.
It depends
Submitted by jon_torlin on Thu, 12/02/2010 - 2:23pm.
It depends on the area, there are many areas that are harder to find jobs than others. I know I've been seeing a few "now hiring" signs on some of the businesses lately(in Texas) so there are jobs to be found, part time or otherwise.
If she's in one of those areas that have these signs, I agree, she's not looking.
-Jon
Really?
Submitted by StarAZ on Thu, 12/02/2010 - 3:11pm.
That's just a stone fact, huh?
Your probably right about
Submitted by Barack_must_go..... on Fri, 12/03/2010 - 11:54am.
Your probably right about that.
Barack_Must_Go.....
Helping what?
Submitted by CobraMan on Thu, 12/02/2010 - 3:08pm.
"Millions of people depend on these payments right now--and will spend them in the stores, helping matters."
How is that "helping matters?" Those unemployment payments have to come from somewhere. Before the "extensions," they came from State unemployment funds, which collects them from the businesses, including retail establishments, as a form of an unemployment tax. That tax reduces the money available for business to, you know, HIRE more people, thus compounding the unemployment problem
If that isn't bad enough, the federal government has stepped in by "extending" benefits with the use of tax payer's money, money the government doesn't even have, thus adding to the deficit, which necessitates the borrowing of money, money that must be paid back, with interest, which adds the cost of interest payments to those "extensions" which, in turn , forces more business, and their employees, to pay even higher taxes in the near future which, in turn, further reduces the amount of money that is available to, you know HIRE employees, which, as you should know by now, WORSENS the unemployment problem. So, please, tell me how this is actually HELPING the unemployment situation in any other way than making it WORSE?
These unemployment "extensions" are a lose-lose situation for everyone, especially the unemployed.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
By helping matters I mean....
Submitted by StarAZ on Thu, 12/02/2010 - 4:02pm.
The immediate--helping that family to stay in their home and have something to eat, with the lights on (and maybe not with a box--know what a box is--it's a prepaid electric device--you go to the elec co and put cash on a card and your then your lights stay on that long--a lot of people in AZ have those now). And the recipient of unemployment payments also tends to spend that money, thus "helping" the local stores and gas stations. Maybe in your intricate economic theoretical world of borrowing from China and so on, this is not helping, but that just means you are not on this level. Yet. And I hope you won't be--but didn't the dear Fed say this was going to suck for several more years--and didn't Crazy Grandpa Simpson say when it goes down, it will be quick, bam, country ruined? So don't quote theory to me.
Charity, you mean
Submitted by CobraMan on Thu, 12/02/2010 - 5:11pm.
What you're describing is charity, something that has "helped" Americans for around 200 years before "unemployment compensation" was invented. Why do we need the federal government to supply charity? We, as individuals, have supplied charity before and it never caused the country to dissolve into chaos. It would be far better for the government to make policies that promote employment, not extend unemployment.
What is actually occurring, conversely, is NOT charity, it's the deliberate reallocation of business and personal wealth which has the effect of preventing people from becoming self-sufficient, preventing them from finding employment.
Your strawman argument of Chinese economics notwithstanding, the continual extensions of unemployment isn't helping anyone, especially the unemployed. It's harming them.
As more and more people face unemployment, and the longer they are receiving "unemployment benefits,"the less people will be able to afford "luxuries," like cell-phones and TV's. This will lead to the reduction of retail sales, leading to the reduction in the number of retail employees who make those sales, manufacturing employees who create the product for sale, shipping employees who deliver those products to market, ect, as well as the business that utilize these employers, which, in turn, reduced federal tax revenue and which, in turn creates even higher deficits leading to even more tax burdens on the currently employed and, more importantly, the businesses who employ them and, thus, reducing the employment opportunities for everyone and causing even greater unemployment in a vicious, government-inspired cycle of continual economic decline Once again, it's a lose-lose situation.
This isn't theory, this is fact. We've already had several "extensions" over the last three years and every "extension" has been followed by an increase in unemployment and a worsening of the economic situation. Care to explain just why that is, if those extensions, as you argue, actually benefit us?
Conversely, we had several recessions before this one and there were no "extensions" of unemployment benefits. As you know, America quickly recovered from these recessions despite the lack of the "benefit" of unemployment compensation extensions. So, please, explain to me again how the "extensions" are a benefit to us when all the available evidence indicates the complete opposite is occurring, that these extensions are actually harmful ?
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Ironical, isn't it?
Submitted by StarAZ on Thu, 12/02/2010 - 3:54pm.
Those who have it all figured out probably also disdain the NYT, but for what it's worth...
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/03/business/economy/03unemployed.html?hp
I still don't get why not doing a background check on whether this woman is a Dem activist or even whether she is unemployed is a big woo. Do they check on everyone in these talking head segs? Well, maybe they do and I am wrong--and this is just a big conspiracy to get people who need to feed their kids those fabulous $300 a week allowances to keep the lights on and Kraft Dinner on the table. Come out to AZ, where every other store is boarded up, no one can sell a house or buy one, for that matter, and things are kinda crummy in year FOUR..
When people like her are unemployed, that's a good thing.
Submitted by virginia republican on Thu, 12/02/2010 - 12:53pm.
Let them experience first hand the benefits of Obama's "hope and change". Maybe if taxes are cut enough for those with lower earnings, some poor person can give her a job (roll eyes) while those more affluent small business owners, who would get hit hard by Obama's tax hikes, lay more people off.
Her LIvelihood is Unemployment Payments?
Submitted by libBuster on Thu, 12/02/2010 - 1:09pm.
This woman's "livelihood" is a government transfer payment - unemployment benefits. That is perverse.
LinkedIn Profile
Submitted by shooter on Thu, 12/02/2010 - 12:59pm.
http://www.linkedin.com/in/edrieirvine
My guess is that she *is* working, and is being paid under the table by leftist/progressive organizations.
And, I would not be surprised if some of those organizations' funding came from US taxpayers!
To quote a Democratic Senator, "It's all rigged"!!!!
_________________________________________
"An armed society is a polite society" -- Robert A. Heinlein
Unemployed, being held
Submitted by kareling on Thu, 12/02/2010 - 1:21pm.
Unemployed, being held hostage by Republicans . . . yet somehow, still able to afford travel to rallies and press conferences.
Amazing...
Submitted by retrocon on Thu, 12/02/2010 - 1:24pm.
Common sense has dissappeared among liberals:
What am i missing? What is difficult for liberals to understand here?
Libs are either extremely stupid, or they do, in fact, have malicious intent.
Also, we should find out if this person is being paid for any of her appearances (probably unlikely since her hubby is a wealthy government bureaucrat). But if she is, wouldn't she be breaking the law by taking unemployment, too?
Never thought
Submitted by Vonu on Thu, 12/02/2010 - 1:36pm.
"never thought her very livelihood would depend on a political debate... It Doesn't, not even for TreeBaggersLove that line
Submitted by Tomorama on Thu, 12/02/2010 - 1:48pm.
Consider "TreeBaggers" stolen.............................................
I blog on the Globe and Herald and I am hearing the same BS where "Republicans only care about the tax cuts for the rich which add to the debt".......
The tax cuts enacted by Bush actually accounted for the most consecutive quarters of growth in our nations history.
Not my opinion, but a fact.
Growth at last glance meant MONEY COMING BACK TO THE GUBMENT, revenues is what I think they are called..........................................
Let's look at this another way
Submitted by KC Mulville on Thu, 12/02/2010 - 1:46pm.
Let's ask our Democrat friends if the government should subsidize the unemployed ... forever. Is there any limit to how much we should extend unemployment?
"Unemployed"
Submitted by Herbster on Thu, 12/02/2010 - 2:03pm.
What else is new? A mediapimp, in this case, Claire Shipman, (Or should that be Claire Shipperson?) burying the background of a "Victim." Remember the old, homeless lady who collected tin cans - she was so "Desprate" according to the media? Turns out she drove to D.C. in her very expensive motor home, lived in a magnificent house, etc. Rest assured that this Shipman/Victim is living large - not living on dog food! Liars and enablers all! And don't forget, unemployment is the answer to all our economic problems! Should we extend unemployment benefits...........yes, but in the following manner.....next week you get 1/2 of your benefit, the following week, 1/4, the following week, ZERO! Watch how fast these folks find some sort of work! Unemployment for new applicants......ten weeks, then the 1/2, 1/4, zero system cuts in giving a person twelve weeks, max. Food stamps? 26 weeks, max. rental assistance? 26 weeks max. You get the point. Being on the dole should not be a career! Until we get an honest media, we are in trouble.
Not much of a liberal
Submitted by CobraMan on Thu, 12/02/2010 - 2:51pm.
"Edrie Irvine never thought her very livelihood would depend on a political debate in Congress."
I guess she's not much of a liberal, you know, the people who believe EVERYONE'S livelihood is dependent upon political debates in Congress. I guess she doesn't believe, like a liberal believes, that CONGRESS is responsible for things like, oh, I don't know, economic policies and regulations, minimum wages, housing regulations, health regulations, interstate commerce regulations, and the like, all of which directly affects our livelihood. But, of course, we all know that's not true.
Edrie, stop lying to us. It's embarrassing.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
How about this Edrie?
Submitted by okiehawk44 on Thu, 12/02/2010 - 3:15pm.
No federal income tax. None.
Oh yeah. I'll give you a job paying you minimum wage. More if you show you can do a better job than the person currently doing it. That will not be easy but let the competition begin. [Just reply online here to schedule an interview -- I'll want to see at least your last 3 tax returns -- just for giggles just giggles -- I'm laughing already]
So let's see: The GOP wants everyone to maintain tax cuts
Submitted by hbnolikeee on Thu, 12/02/2010 - 3:18pm.
and the dums that don't want to do that are bitching about that and saying no to all but yes to some and that the GOP is holding the middle class hostage.
What kind of ill logic is that? When the GOP says ALL that includes the middle class. What bull crap. These low lives need to be fired and jailed.
I hope the GOP
Submitted by hbnolikeee on Thu, 12/02/2010 - 3:33pm.
hangs tough and does nothing unless these dumocrats get the message and extend the tax cuts for all (for the moron lib that includes the middle class-get it "ALL").
The GOP needs to stand their ground or all is lost. This is the first salvo and they need to win this battle.
And The Left Wonders...
Submitted by Conservator on Thu, 12/02/2010 - 3:41pm.
...why FOX NEWS is ranked as the most trusted TV outlet (cable and public).
Misplaced priorities
Submitted by UltraC on Thu, 12/02/2010 - 3:52pm.
Ms. Irvine might have a job by now if she'd spent time looking for a job instead of attending rallies and whining about it on national television.
Last year, after being laid off, I and my former colleagues attended training that emphasized the need for us to treat our job search like a part-time job in itself, putting at least 20 hours each week into building networking contacts and training ourselves on new technologies and methods, so that we might stand out to potential employers and spend as little time out of the workforce as possible. Ms. Irvine seems to have her priorities out of whack. Shame on ABC for its portrayal of her. Either they didn't know or they did know and didn't care. I'd be curious how many unemployed viewers were discouraged from their own job searches by such a negative message.
Her husband is on Biden's STAFF, fer chrissakes!!
Submitted by gopcongress on Thu, 12/02/2010 - 4:36pm.
Maybe Michele Obama can be the next "unemployed" person that ABC can portray.
"The news and truth are not the same thing." -Walter Lippmann (1889-1974) FOLLOW ME ON TWITTER
Liberals are morons
Submitted by Scottyb4292 on Fri, 12/03/2010 - 3:51am.
Liberals actually take joy in these kinds of misrepresentations of fact finding. Notice how they prop up a woman (Clair Shipman) to bring us the sympathetic angle of the story. Women, you see, are attuned to our emotions. Robin Robinson, at the conclusion of the story, quipped, "And can you imagine how she (Irvine) must be feeling to have to watch the political parties arguing over this at her expense?"
These people, these so-called journalists, are nothing more than statist propagandists. I love to watch GMA as often as I can because it's just fun to study how they twist the truth. It's like having the privilege of studying under Hans Goering. Remember when they devoted a special ABC daily segment to promote the White House "Prescription For America"? Pure genius. ABC is deeply invested in this president and the Democrat Party. It's almost like they are a wing of the party.
It's so great that News Busters brings these despots out into the light of day.