Cancer is truly a tragedy in every case, but that was no excuse for ABC "World News Tonight's" shoddy shell game during the February 15 broadcast.
In a segment on reduced federal funding for cancer research, anchor Charles Gibson introduced the story by stating that the National Cancer Institute has seen funding decreases in the past two years and the Bush budget is promoting a third cut.
But by the time reporter Lisa Stark actually did any math she was using the budget cuts from one non-profit organization, but hadn't bothered to explain why. And that wasn't the only thing Stark left out of the segment.
You can find the entire Business & Media Institute story here.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
So let me see if I have this
February 16, 2007 - 16:50 ET bySo let me see if I have this right.
The main-stream-media reported that there is a significant drop in cancer research funds and that Bush is going to cut more; but they neglected to point out that the 'significant' drop in funds was not by the US Government, but rather it was by a non-profit group. And it neglected to point out that the government cut is only 2/10 of 1% of the amount it does give. AND it neglected to point out that most of the cancer research funds come from neither of these fund sources, but from drug and biotech companies (the companies that put out the drugs).
Talk about having something and not using it wisely--Freedom of the press!
The point of the story is t
February 16, 2007 - 17:08 ET by zhombreThe point of the story is that the Bushies have cut cancer research in order to finance tax cuts for the rich and a futile war in Iraq. If the point is made, the actual details are trivial. The essential Truth (let's call it Pravda for purposes of argument) is that Bush is bad (the corollary of which is Democrats are good), and the minor technical points of veracity aren't that important. These would only confuse the viewer. Best leave them out altogether.
AND neglect to point out that
February 16, 2007 - 23:23 ET by taznarAND neglect to point out that every dollar used to fund embryonic stem cells just because politicians and entertainers think they're the scientific "Holy Grail" is one less dollar being spent on other, often more likely means of curing diseases from cancer to Parkinson's to the common cold.
(sorry, just had to toss that in there)
taznar, Good point! Very good
February 17, 2007 - 00:54 ET bytaznar,
Good point! Very good point!
Funding for cancer is by fa
February 16, 2007 - 16:57 ET by JDWFunding for cancer is by far and away higher than any other disease. Many literally sacrifice, because of lessor numbers they are forced to endure no cures, more basic treatment, and continue to hope. Socialize medicine and these people will be lost.
JDW
Wounded skier. Corrections have been causing time-outs so mistakes will be made.
New pro-adoption dems, what about replacing abortions?
I was channel surfing last ni
February 16, 2007 - 23:15 ET by msh1973I was channel surfing last night and saw this same story on NBC Nightly News. The MSM just can't help themselves.
Recently, National Institutes
February 17, 2007 - 08:45 ET by Dave HighRecently, National Institutes of Health Officials reported that cancer deaths in the U.S. have dropped for the second year in a row. President Bu immediately stood up and took credit for increased funding for cancer research since 2001. He said,
“First, I’m pleased that we’re funding cancer research. We’re up about 25 percent or 26 percent since 2001; it’s a commitment that I made when I first came to Washington, it’s a commitment we’re keeping. And the reason why it makes sense to spend taxpayers’ money on cancer research is that we can make some good progress, and have.”
The problem with this statement though is that most of the increase in research spending took place in the early years of the Bu administration under a Clinton initiative. Bush’s actual record is he cut funding for cancer research last year and his new budget calls for further cuts.
The real question here is, why does President Bu obfuscate facts and mislead the Amercian people on virtually every great issue of the day? How can he stand there and take credit for the results of a Clinton innitiative which he is currently undermining?
If lying and obfuscation are the hallmarks of the Worst President In The World, then ladies and gentlemen, we have a weiner! For more insight on the character of our president, please follow this link http://www.rawstory.com//news/2007/Bernstein_Bush_administrations_disinformation_misinformation_something_0214.html#
to Carl Berstein's take on the difference between Nixon's lying and manipulation of the press and our current Disinformer in the White House.
Regards, Dave High
"Too many OB/GYN's aren't able to practice their love with women all across the country." ~ George W. Bush ~ MakesYaProudDonIt?
Seems like you did not read
February 17, 2007 - 09:12 ET by MivvisSeems like you did not read the article.
Exactly.. NCI cut funding o
February 17, 2007 - 09:39 ET by rimskyExactly.. NCI cut funding of the non profit Cancer Cooperative Groups. This wasn't necessarily a direct result of any cuts proposed by the Bush Administration, but then we wouldn't expect Charlie to point out THAT obscure little fact, now would we. For all we know, the cut by NCI to CCG could have been made to cover pay raises at NCI. Sorry, that was pretty cynical, I know, but it's no worse than the way Gibson and his ilk routinely skew their so called news stories.
“Ever-increasing, risk
February 17, 2007 - 09:44 ET by Dave R“Ever-increasing,
risk-averse FDA regulation [has] pushed the cost of drug development to
unprecedented levels and shrunk both the number of applications to FDA
for marketing approval of drugs and the number actually approved,”
Miller explained.
I interpret that as due to the National Trial Lawyers Association's ceaseless and cripling litigation involving drug side effects, the drug companies are scared to death when it comes to developing new drugs so they are developing fewer drugs.
Given that Dave H. is a confirmed lib and undoubtedly a supporter of huge jury awards and unlimited government regulation, particularly those against the big, evil drug companies, his only recourse is to blame GWB.
I hate newspapermen.....I regard them as spies.....If I killed them all there would be news from Hell before breakfast. -Gen. William T. Sherman
Lets get this clear. Bush's
February 17, 2007 - 09:34 ET by NL207Lets get this clear. Bush's actual record is he increased cancer funding in his first 4 years in office and has cut it back in his 5th and proposes to cut it back some more in his 6th. Without researching the actual numbers, I might feature a guess that even with the one actual cut that you say has occured and if the one he proposes next year is enacted by the DEMOCRATIC congress, the amount spent on cancer research will still be greater than when he first took office.
Only a lying bastard like you would attempt to attribute budget decisions made during Bush's tenure in office to the plans of his predecessor. It seems to escape you that once Bush takes office, he has the option to CHANGE the plans of his predecessor, whatever they may have been. He did not. Bush also bears responsibility for every budget presented during his term. And he bears NO responsibility for any budget Clinton prepared or that might in the future be prepared by his successor. It is a fact that his successor has the perogative to CHANGE anything that Bush did at his discretion just as Bush has the perogative to change things his predecesor did, like not taking any $5 million bribes for the ChiComms or bribes from wealthy fugitives in Switzerland who want pardons.
Carl Bernstein? He is hardly a non-partisan source, now is he? He calls himself a journalist. I call him a Democratic operative. I hope he writes his trash on toilet paper. Then it will at least be of some use to someone.
Now, about those numbers.
This is the actual decrease you quote: "The NCI’s total budget for Fiscal Year 2005 was $4.83 billion. The NCI will invest an estimated $4.79 billion during Fiscal Year 2006. The budget is expected to decrease to $4.75 billion in Fiscal Year 2007."
And these are Bush's first year: "The NCIs budgets for fiscal years 2000 and 2001 were $3.3 billion and $3.8 billion, respectively. The estimated budget for fiscal year 2002 is nearly $4.2 billion"
How about it High, 2007 is $500 Million more than 2002. And the cuts made were a mere 1% per year. It seems to me the disinformer in the White House doesn't have a thing on YOU in that respect.
Keep on posting trash like this. Let the world see what liberals are really all about.
Hmm, let’s see. Under Bus
February 17, 2007 - 11:37 ET by Dave HighHmm, let’s see. Under Bush’s new budget plan he wants to cut funding for Cancer Research (that dang science thing!), Head Start, education programs (no wealthy child left behind), veterans benefits, veterans hospitals (support our troops!), Homeland Security (he never did like HS), environmental programs (no surprise here), business development grants (no more urban handouts!), Amtrak (these boots were made for walkin’!), and a host of other Main Street programs, all so the wealthiest among us can invest in our new found Freedom won by the sweat and blood of our soldiers in Iraq. The other day, President Bu in an interview was asked the question, “how do you think history will remember you?” Do you know what he said? To the effect of, “I want to be remembered as a ‘Compassionate Conservative.” Sweet Jesus, what a hoot! If I were him, I wouldn’t want to be remembered as “The Worst President in the World,” or the “Man Who Brought The World to the Brink of Armageddon” either!
Regards, Dave High
"Too many OB/GYN's aren't able to practice their love with women all across the country." ~ George W. Bu ~ In a truly Compassionate Conservative moment
Yes Dave, you are high.
February 17, 2007 - 16:33 ET by MivvisYes Dave, you are high.
Definition of a "cut" to a Li
February 17, 2007 - 16:51 ET by gfrrmanDefinition of a "cut" to a Lib.....not spending as much as they wanted.
Care to provide number cites there Dave High.
February 17, 2007 - 17:04 ET by acaiguanaCare to provide number cites there Dave High.
No, of course not. You just post bumper sticker stuff.
Oh well...
What about your buddies the Democrats? They basically have just voted to maintain a 'continuing' resolution throughout the fiscal year. That means (in case you don't know what that means, and I have to assume you don't because it's kinda hard to 'bumper sitcker' it) that no increases from last year for this fiscal year.
Now, that would be 'cutting' funding in the Democrat minds, would you not agree?
And the Bush budget has a snowball's chance as have most President's budgets over the years. I defy you Dave High to provide an example within the past 15 years where a President's budget looked anything like the budget that was signed into law.
I'll not hold my breath.
But you are again deliberately trying to mislead the reader with shallow bumper sticker comments.
You keep on thinkin', Dave High, that's what you are good at.
ACA
...
Hillary Clinton says: "I want to take those profits."
Yes, he wants to cut cancer r
February 17, 2007 - 19:35 ET by NL207Yes, he wants to cut cancer research funding by 0.8 percent. I am opposed to this, especially becuase he used the money saved to increased AIDS and Tuberculosis research funds as part of his program. i.e. overall NIH funding did not decrease, it INCREASED. Priorities shifted.
Now lets see what the truth is about these other allegations of yours are. Lets start with Head Start, a program which simply should not exist in the first place since it exceeds the Congress' Constitutional authority under Article I and usurps a right of the states. I find in this reference, this quotation: "Forty-four percent of programs indicated that the 1 percent budget cut has hindered training and professional development at their program." From the refernce, it is clear that what was actually cut was money spent on extras for the departmental STAFF that administers Head Start, and not the actual program money for kids. Some people might think this cut was astute fiscal management.
Now, Veterans' benefits: From this reference, this qotation: "President Bush will seek a landmark budget of nearly $87 billion in fiscal year 2008 for the Department of Veterans Affairs, with health care and disability compensation for veterans receiving the majority of the spending. The budget proposal represents an increase of $37.8 billion, or 77 percent, from the budget in effect when the President took office" And from this reference we get this quote: "Overall, the VA budget would rise to $80.6 billion, including $42.1 billion for entitlements, such as disability payments and rehabilitation programs. Officials hope to avoid a repeat of last year, when the VA received $1.2 billion in emergency funding after it had underestimated the number of personnel returning from Iraq and Afghanistan who would seek VA medical treatment."
Homeland Security: Also from this source: "The president proposes increasing the Department of Homeland Security's budget of $31 billion for fiscal 2007, by $177 million. "
Environmental Protection Agency: from this source: "The EPA’s Fiscal Year (FY) 2008 Annual Performance Plan and the Congressional Justification request is $7.2 billion in discretionary budget authority and17,324 Full Time Equivalents (FTE)." and fom this source: "The EPA’s FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Budget requests $7.3 billion in discretionary budget authority and 17,560 Full Time Equivalents (FTE)." We will have to give you this one. Bush wants to cut a whopping 1.4% of this budget. To bad. These clowns together with OSHA and the FDA represent the worst fascism in the entire government. Too bad he doesn't slash these do-nothing jerks by 50%.
Small Business Administration: By the way, Dave, why is the Federal Government financing business start ups at all? Is that not more appropriately a function for private capitalists? Please show me the Article I power that gives Congress the authority to do this. From this source: "For 2008, the Budget requests $464 million in new budget authority for the Small Business Administration (SBA)." From this source: "For 2007, the Budget requests $624 million in new budget authority for the Small Business Administration (SBA)." Wow! Bush is reducing this by a whopping 26%. And its not even a function the federal Government should be engaged in!
Amtrak: I am not even going to bother with this, merelyt ask the question: Why is the Federal Government using tax dollars to subsidize an unprofitable intercity transportation system when there are at least two privately operasted competitive industries that do pay their own bills: Airlines and Buslines. Amtrak should simply be left to fend for itself instead of being propped up by the forced contributions of taxpayers.
Looks like some of your claims are outright lies. Most of the rest are distortions of one sort or another, and a few are simply red herrings. It is quote clear nothing you say can be trusted at face value.
This, High, is called being "destroyed in detail". Enjoy the experience.
Snxxx
February 17, 2007 - 17:15 ET by Guy Arthur ThomasWarning....liberal dingleberries below.
If you claim to be a conservative, please don't disgrace yourself and conservatism by thinking and arguing like a liberal. Go Rudy!