Labor numbers showed a rapidly slowing economy.
And it was presumably especially disturbing for
the Whitehouse, who have been boasting about how
hot the economy is and sneering at critics who
pointed to the harm being done by chaotic policy.
For this report seems to validate the critics.
So there was only one thing to do ... fire the
commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics,
accusing her
without evidence
of manipulating the numbers for political purposes.
To be clear, every Whitehouse and Cabinet takes action and makes policy based on claims that are presented without worthwhile (or any) evidence (eg:CyberPearlHarbor)
It is my long and unbroken experience that voters who share a party with the WH are generally happy to accept claims without evidence.
And (before this PotUS) generations of news orgs reliably gave evidence-free PR a pass too. They dutifully re-printed agency statements without vetting it or considering the agency's history.
To that last, I will append that news orgs sometimes did their job if a Republican was in office. Usually not tho.
So I guess it's awesome that agency facts matter enough to check now. But why did we have to get to this point before the US Press would honor it's 1A protections in a meaningful and ongoing way?
treetalker · 1h ago
I read the article (and the real-life situation) differently than you do, I think.
As I see it, the core issue is not whether the agency's numbers are right or wrong or need to be fact-checked. Nor is it whether the administration is making policy without evidence (although that would be / is problematic.)
The core issue is that Trump is purporting to dismiss a nonpartisan public servant because he doesn't like that the nonpartisan data coming out of the agency make him look bad. This is something one would expect from Stalin's regime; or North Korea; but not the White House (under any other circumstances).
It is my long and unbroken experience that voters who share a party with the WH are generally happy to accept claims without evidence.
And (before this PotUS) generations of news orgs reliably gave evidence-free PR a pass too. They dutifully re-printed agency statements without vetting it or considering the agency's history.
To that last, I will append that news orgs sometimes did their job if a Republican was in office. Usually not tho.
So I guess it's awesome that agency facts matter enough to check now. But why did we have to get to this point before the US Press would honor it's 1A protections in a meaningful and ongoing way?
As I see it, the core issue is not whether the agency's numbers are right or wrong or need to be fact-checked. Nor is it whether the administration is making policy without evidence (although that would be / is problematic.)
The core issue is that Trump is purporting to dismiss a nonpartisan public servant because he doesn't like that the nonpartisan data coming out of the agency make him look bad. This is something one would expect from Stalin's regime; or North Korea; but not the White House (under any other circumstances).