That's something to GOP is good at. I don't think they always unintentionally mislead people, somtimes they intentionally mislead people.

Like with the life insurance policies they would sell in the poor & minority communities. They would sell 'whole life' policies of $5-10k, certainly not enough for a complete burial. With the huge commissions they got on this policies every month from the premiums, they would beg the people not to cancel their policies, because then the company would charge-back the commission. Meaning, they would deduct the would-be commissions out of the sales rep. check. At, the same time, they never tell the consumer/client that this is really a savings account, and that instead of just stopping the premiums they can actually cash out the money they've paid into the policy.

Isn't Instapundit a law professor? If so, shouldn't he know better than to take someone else's word for it when they describe a bill? For that matter, shouldn't a law professor know that in a 1,000-page bill it is highly unlikely that anything of substance will be found on page 16 (the early pages being taken up by findings, statements of policy, and definitions)?

How embarrassing! Which is to say, another day at the office for Prof. Reynolds...

Our wingnut friends are just busy looking for the right paddle to bring them home from the creek they went up the last 30 years. And Obama keeps giving them nothing but splinters to work with.

But this illustrates another important aspect of right-wing reasoning: Who says something is more important to them than what is actually said.

Is this a surprise? Anyone can repeat this feat on demand by listening to any right-wing media outlet and then doing some easy googling. We're talking propaganda not objective journalism. We're talking the Billy May approach to bloviating. Not Edward R. Murrow. We're talking selling product to the masses. I wonder how many read these blogs and then bothered to fact-check? And then post comments to correct the mistake. And who would really care?

It's nice to get definitive proof that some bloggers really don't bother to do basic research before posting something, and we got some today.

You're joking, right? Or have you already forgotten that you were caught do the same effing thing a couple days ago?

Feh.

Blogging is a little too real-time to expect real fact-checking. What Blogs are good at is correcting themselves, though, both through reader comments and updates and later emmendations. That is if the blogger is interested in accuracy.

I almost always read the comments on stories that interest me, and very often there is a different valid interpretation -- or overlooked fact -- in there.

What Hilzoy didn't take into account was the little thing called "annual enrollment."

I understand most liberals don't know what this means, since most liberals are employed by the government, or enjoying union benefits, or unemployed.

But for most in the private sector, you have to re-enroll with your insurance company every year, hence "annual enrollment." This is usually done during a phase called "open enrollment," when you can switch insurance companies if you so please.

So yes, this clause will destroy the private option as we know it, even though Obama said it wouldn't.

I'd shake my head in disbelief but liberals really don't see anything but unicorns and rainbows with this bill.

This thread is due to your intrepid work in delving into the facts,and, precisely, why you are so very much needed here. Now, please, go to Rwanda and observe that lovely Nacktehl Laermvogel (Ach, how lovely it sounds in German), but, get outta there before the Black Mambas start to party hardy. You are sorely needed here.

Our Black Mambas here are merely of the trolling kind.

@ al jr: that falls into the "pretty implausible" category, such that no reasonable person would accept your claim w/o evidence. (why implausible? It's a draconian result reached through deep tricksiness. Or: it's the kinda double bank shot thing CT'ers believe. And when one gets a whiff of CT, reasonable people's skepticism is raised)

It also sounds completely implausible
It's not just implausible, it's insane. Beyond the knee-jerk propaganda catapulting, what always strikes me about this particular gambit is the motivation behind it: the idea that there is a big secret "gotcha" just waiting to be discovered by some intrepid young blogger with his virtual evil detector, and then the nefarious intent of liberals will once again be revealed just like in the glorious days of the great TANG Document Un-Kerning. What makes it completely insane is that the object of the pursuit, and what's always "uncovered," is something as completely ludicrous as this example, something that always reinforce the most lunatic Hannityesque paranoia where even health care bills are just another form of terrorism by anti-American Democrats.

PS We are going to miss your particularly thoughful and cogent posts.

There's a part of my bullshit detector that I think of as my "too-good-to-be-true-ometer" for lack of a more compact phrasing.

Basically, it's the thing that tells me that this new 'fact' I'd like to use to bolster my argument, or undercut my adversary's, is just a wee bit too good to be true, from the POV of trying to win the argument, and I'd better not rely on just one flimsy source - I'd better make sure my 'facts' are real, honest-to-God facts.

A for-instance: a few years back, I was starting a blog about Steny Hoyer, who in addition to being the Dems' #2 guy in the House, is my Congressman. A fairly well-known blogger who I won't name had some really interesting dirt on Hoyer, and it looked like just the thing to give my blog a quick boost. I spent a week trying to get some corroboration for the scandalous stuff, and never did, so I didn't use it. (By the time I was done with that, I was beat, hadn't posted anything new for a week, and didn't feel like bothering with that blog anymore, so it died a quiet death after only a couple of weeks in existence.)

The problem with right-wing bloggers is that they don't even seem interested in screening out specious evidence supporting their attacks on those to their left. This makes them good propagandanists (until people get wise to their game) but it should discredit them entirely with anyone outside of the wingnut faithful.

The IBD article also says, "The nonpartisan Lewin Group estimated in April that 120 million or more Americans could lose their group coverage at work and end up in such a program". From the Lewin Group website: "The Lewin Group is an Ingenix company. Ingenix, a wholly-owned subsidiary of UnitedHealth Group." Nonpartisan?

Of course, also failing is IBD, which should really not be giving its readers false information that would cost them huge piles of money if they acted on it. Maybe we should convene another blogger ethics conference.

Misinfo also broadcast on the Hugh Hewitt show.

Of course, also failing is IBD, which should really not be giving its readers false information...

There's no info in the IBD that's not in the WSJ. You only get IBD in the first place if the WSJ is too corrupted by socialism for your taste.

IBD is a notorious, airport-stall-next to the RNC occupant and tunnel bunny to big business/PACS and Lobbies. You expect anything less? If it's not price gouging/CDO-pimping, pump and dump capitalism it's a Socialist conspiracy to them.

Limbaugh ran with this on Thursday, too. It sounded fishy to me, but just about everything he says sounds fishy to me.

and the dems actually listen to people that disagree with them? LOL

You are also slightly misleading people. By only allowing grandfathered people in, I cannot buy a plan after Y1 that existed before. I can only buy what the government deems is "acceptable".

Anybody know what Disputo is talking about @7:03 AM? I've been a lurker on ObWi for several years, and don't remember any controversy over Hilzoy failing to research something. A quick google doesn't turn anything up, either.

@Robert 12:17: Well, some of us do. Our president has been listening to people he disagrees with almost to a fault, IMO. I'm more than willing to have discussions with people I tend to disagree with, as long as they're willing to keep the conversation civil. It's when you start equating my views with fascism that I start to have a problem.

2 pointsù

1) I don't see why information which tells one to not waste time on instapundit and Michelle Malkin is useful. Would you consider the suggestion that you not cut your right hand off useful ? I mean are you seriously saying that you yesterday had any doubt that they are completely intellectually irresponsible ?

2) you can add me to the list (not useful info either since, as far as I know, you have never wasted any time reading my blog. I discuss bits of quoted text without checking the context quite often.

In my own defense do admit this when I do it and never speculate about the meaning of the text in its original context. I would not, for example, have claimed to be discussing the actual bill when discussing the bit of the bill quoted by IBD.

Look blogging is a medium and it is not reasonable to hold all bloggers to well any particular standard. I think you should have written

"rudimentary research that any [high traffic] blogger [who asks to be taken seriously] ought to do.

I cannot believe this is true!

Great idea, thanks for this tip!

I recently came across your blog and have been reading along. I thought I would leave my first comment. I don't know what to say except that I have enjoyed reading. Nice blog. I will keep visiting this blog very often.

Sara

http://smallbusinessgrant.info