First impressions mean a lot. In that vein, here’s the first paragraph from the front page story in today’s New York Times about Obama’s budget proposal, to be revealed later today:
President Obama will propose further tax increases on the affluent to help pay for his promise to make health care more accessible and affordable, calling for stricter limits on the benefits of itemized deductions taken by the wealthiest households, administration officials said Wednesday.
Now what NYT could have said is that Obama is reversing the massive tax cuts that former President Bush gave to “the affluent”, tax cuts which ran in excess of a trillion dollars that did absolutely nothing to help our economy and we can no longer afford anyway. I realize that’s biased, but A) It’s true; and B) Is it anymore biased then this crap NYT wrote which basically mouths the GOP talking point of class war?
Maybe something inbetween these two views would work. Perhaps the phrase “tax adjustment” would be more objective? It would, at least, veer more towards accuracy — which is what I thought the news media was supposed to do anyways.