Friday Mailbag: Manchester, Stereotypes and Social Security Math

Goodbye to the public editor column and the supposed job to be "at the intersection between readers" and the editors and journalists of the NYT. The editors don't want anybody there, and that's been clear for a while. They don't want to hear remonstrance or warning. They will head off to follow their supposed course to glory, where they stand for nothing and publish both truth and falsehood for "balance". They believe this is the way to wrap up the nation's readers in gauze and glitter. But there's gauze and glitter everywhere, really, and watching the NYT do this is like watching a teacher you respected take up pole dancing at the age of 54. Too bad, really, a loss and an unseemly one at that. My subscription runs out in 4 days, and just in time, I'd say.

"...Our Disgraceful Exit." Ostensibly about Trump. But I continue to be amazed mindless Democrats take no responsibility for His Trumpness--refuse to admit they nominated such a wretched person for Prez that EVEN Trump could beat her! WHAT were they thinking? Or--more likely--weren't thinking at all. Almost as if they believed women would vote in a block for her, just as persons of color voted for Obama--regardless of his bono fides. His mixed-color was right! Her genitalia--not so much.

The NY Times is eliminating the public editor column because "our followers on social media and our readers across the internet have come together to collectively serve as a modern watchdog, more vigilant and forceful than one person could ever be. Our responsibility is to empower all of those watchdogs, and to listen to them, rather than to channel their voice through a single office."

In other words, the NY Times is going to conduct the public editor the same way the PGA uses fans on TV to enforce rules violations.

The most likely answer is that the public editor pointed out facts that disputed the liberal worldview of its readers, instead of merely reinforcing their biases (like the rest of the paper). So this paper is going to become an even bigger echo-chamber!

Is it true that this is the last PubEd piece, and NYT is scrapping the position ?!!!

Ms. Davis's response to the Social Security issue is precisely why this newspaper should not be canning its editors.

Congrats, Spayd. You came in minimizing the position, now you have helped to eliminate it. Mission accomplished?
Of course, only a fool thinks that there are not many issues of problematic journalistic integrity in the Times.

I will certainly miss this pathetic attempt to keep the editors honest. According to them, they haven't made a mistake since this job was created 15 years ago. In the words of someone whose name I can't recall -- sad.

Well, I can't say I enjoyed Spayd's weak reaction to reader's concerns, but I hope she lands on her feet. I feel confident she will.

Bye bye.

Hirschfeld Davis does not explain the NYTimes confusion over Social Security at all.

1. What other government program is solvent, clearly funded, for even 3 years, never mind for decades? Answer: none. Yet we do not read panicky articles about those programs.

2. The fix is direct and straight-forward, not a mystery. Of course Congress may choose to deliberately break Social Security, but that is not a fault of the program's design.

We have to hope that one of George Carlin's last routines does not come true, how "they" [Congress] are coming to get Social Security and "turn it over to their criminal friends on Wall Street."

It's very sad for Ariana Grande. (It's sadder for the victims and witnesses.) But the fact is that the events happened during her concert. History can't be erased and the idea that her name never be mentioned with this event is kind of ludicrous.

Fans today are very protective - think Beyonce and her obsessive "stans"(stalker/fan). So the stans are trying to protect Ariana (and her brand - she has lots of stuff including a fragrance line which is quite popular) from harm.

But if you look on Wiki, the band The Who is still mentioned in a stampede at their Cincinnati concert where 11 people died - in 1979. I don't remember that but I do remember the nightclub fire in West Warwick, Rhode Island - which in 2003 killed 100 people at a Great White concert, from concert pyrotechnics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Station_nightclub_fire

According to Wiki, the band Great White is still together and touring - as they should be. Ariana Grande will do her Manchester benefit (a nice gesture) yet her name will forever be connected to this concert in records. But people will forget after a while. It's fine if people forget; it's not fine if official records and old copies of publications do.

Can you please fix the comments system? When an article has a very large number of comments, "permid" link you email me no longer works. It simply takes me to the top of the comments. There is literally no way to view my comment on an article with more than 1000 or so comments.

What gives with the Times these days. Some op-eds have comments ad infinitum, some allow as few as eight, some none. Is there any standard or rhyme or reason. And what about the elitism of your designating some as commentators as "trusted." Are the rest of us under suspicion always? Are you following the model of the beloved airlines? Speaking of which, how is it that you have in an op-ed the opinion by a pilot that there never was a "golden age of Flight" by a man who, himself, only began to experience air travel in 1979 when it was deregulated by Carter with assistance from Ted Kennedy and his eager staffer, the always self-righteous Steven Breyer, and in the same issue an article in the business section showing that the driver of diminishing customer service in the airlines is Wall Street's demand for profit based not on service but simply numbers. Is this your notion of the now dead Fairness Doctrine or just doctrine, or perhaps imitation of the shouting matches we get on tv of opposite political viewpoints..

"Unquestionably, Ariana Grande has been through the worst possible tragedy that a performer, anyone, could endure." Do you think before you type?? This isn't even an issue worthy of this space. The food stamp photo is a little more of something to think about, but the Social Security story is such a clear but minor mistake that the writer and editors would have benefited from a simple "mea culpa." Unless you don't understand what they're talking about, how can you read such a poor rationalization that completely misses the point and conclude, "That's a very clear explanation...Thanks."?

Here is another untouched issue raised by the NYT's coverage of the terrorism incident in Manchester; the unseemly close nature of the relationship between the NYT and the US national security apparatus. The photos in question -- juicy morcels of click bait -- so eagerly published by the Times no doubt came from a trusted source in the US intel community eager to cement its relationship with the NYT; their go to cheerleader and stenographer in the MSM. It's the sort of "give and get" between media and sources the public understands too little about. The provision of these photos built the relationship of the source/provider with the NYT. In the world of "give and get" the source has provided a relatively big "give" that lines him up in future for a relatively big but always unspoken "get'. For important sources that means being able in future to contact friendly journalists and editors who will be amenable to placing the information they want placed in the media with the source friendly spin they want. We have seen this again and again ( lead up to Iraq War etc.. ) and the NYT has provided Yeoman service in this regard earning the nickname "Official Sources Say" in many serious journalistic circles due to its willingness to play this game all while still having the temerity to refer to other nations' newspapers as government "mouthpieces". Let's have a serious discussion about how beholding the NYT is to its national security sources and the implications.

The raising of the Ariana Grande issue seems designed to draw the dogs off the key issue which is the poor judgement the NYT used in publishing important information still relevant to the investigation of a lethal terrorism incident likely involving a still functioning network of terrorists. The introduction of this Grande red herring will likely work no better than the feeble response to criticism of this act in the Public Editor's last column. How about this; instead of trying to divert the discussion to less egregious errors the Public Editor can dig deeper into the systemic and editorial policy issues that led to this decision? For an institution that so often argues for transparency from politicians and corporations the hypocritical reluctance of the NYT to disclose even the briefest account of the decision making process that went into this blunder comes off as both pompous and tone deaf. It also points to a much larger systemic issue at the Times -- the refusal of the paper to acknowledge the NYT readership has any right to engage the paper on any discussion of its "editorial policy" the very decision making process Miss Spayd so quickly genuflected to without requesting reasons. In 2017 this is simply unacceptable. The NYT and its editors are not operating under medieval Canon Law. They are not the Pope. They are not infallible. The only reason not to disclose reasons is when those reasons do not hold up to public scrutiny. Not a good look for the NYT.

Might we take a moment to notice President Trump's glowing praise for Greg Pianoforte and his outrageous bullying behavior in Montana and Trump's absence of remarks re the bravery and consequences to those three men in Portland who stood up against racial hatred on a train. That's our skewered country now and our government's upside down ethics and compassion in a nutshell.

Can you explain the minimal coverage the Times, and for that matter most mainstream media, is devoting to the domestic terrorism that just took place in Portland, Oregon?

The NYTimes, and other major media, repeatedly get co-opted by those who want to be able to privatize and loot some or all of Social Security.

There is no serious problem with Social Security funds. Repeat that. The scare stories are looking to 2035 or later and ignore the fact that there is an simple fix: remove the income limit on which Social Security taxes are paid. There is no other governmental program that is remotely as sound and self-funding as Social Security. Do we read panicked articles about the Pentagon budget? No, it is assumed it is out of control (unaudited and increasing every year). Finally, the U.S. government owes Social Security about $2.5 trillion for surplus monies that were used to fund wars and tax cuts for the rich by taking on debt.

So we learn here that Social Security, which if off-budget because it's an income transfer system, not a government expenditure in the usual sense, is "running a surplus and projected to be solvent for many years into the future" but somehow it's still one of the "two largest drivers of the deficit".

Glad to hear Liz Spayd finds that's "a very clear explanation", but it's unlikely readers who don't share the Times' hostility to "entitlements" will agree that either the original reporting or the explanation is anything but disingenuous.

The Social Security trust fund is owed trillions of dollars (approaching 3 trillion) that has been used as general tax revenue in support of the huge amount of money wasted on supposed defense. To hide this Republicans want to go on and on about how the amount of the Federal budget for Social Security is larger than the next big budget outlay and that is defense. They smoke screen the fact that Social Security FICA covers the budget outlay of Social Security and not income tax. In addition they skip around the fact that people like Trump only pay FICA on their first $118,500 of income and not on the millions beyond which they rake and take---this while the mass of hard working Americans pay in full. The SS Trust Fund should be eliminated and thus the FICA tax in support of it should be done away with, the cap should be eliminated and all should pay FICA on their entire income and return SS to the concept of it being a user fee that those benefiting from the current progress of the nation pay those that have build and maintain the economic system. Also, the 40 hr. work week needs to be cut to 20 so that everyone has an opportunity to join in building and maintain the economy that increasingly runs robots, drones and automated systems that are product of the progress that come of the entire culture and has not been brought to be by a wealth hoarding few.

Your answer on Social Security is off base. It does not drive the national debt, so the writer's explanation is nonsensical. This idea that it does drive the debt seems like a GOP talking point so it can eventually kill the program. I am surprised you were OK with her reasoning.

Ms. Spayd,
Looks like we have a case of ilnumeracy on our hands. Even if its a fact that current Social Security expenditures exceed current Social Security revenues, that does not mean Social Security expenditures are a driver of the nation's debt. The overall program has accumulated a huge surplus over the past decades in anticipation of this time. Social Security is spending down its savings, just as planned.
It's just like college or retirement. I have big net cash outflows this year to pay for my daughter's college expenses. These outflows are not driving my debt. I am drawing down on savings and investments I had set aside for this time.
A retiree drawing down an IRA, rather than living off current income, is not going into debt. The retiree is living off savings, which is how the system is supposed to work.
The long-term question that Hirschfeld-Davis identifies is correct -- is the system taking in enough funds now to meet obligations in the future? If actuarial analysis shows that it is not, then one is faced with adjusting payouts -- which would be breaking a covenant with those who paid in -- or adjusting payments into the fund, which would either mean raising payroll tax rates, or the social security cap.
Shame on the public editor for giving Hirschfeld-Davis a pass on this one. Truly, another in a string of disappointing judgments from this disappointing public editor.

So the photo editor didn't use the photo of whites receiving food from a food bank because they weren't specifically using food stamps but she ran a photo of a couple looking at supermarket shelves because..........?

So social security, not driving any national debt, is said to be one of the two largest drivers of that debt--an absolutely false statement, on a matter of huge import--and that's okay with the public editor? The idea that this might be true at some future date is no justification at all. You might as well publish living people's obituaries on that ground; at least those will definitely happen at some future time. How far will the New York Times fall from its former quality? How long will you pretend it isn't so?

This public editor seems to be a complete wimp. How else can she go along with the reporter's non-explanation for the erroneous statement about Social Security being a "driver" of the national debt? Unless, of course, she wishes to promote that right-wing falsehood.

"Unquestionably, Ariana Grande has been through the worst possible tragedy that a performer, anyone, could endure." 

Worse than being a victim of this sort of thing herself, or even being in a terrible car crash, for that matter? Worse than losing a close friend or relative? Worse than being flown between gigs in a plane you know is going to crash (think Buddy Holly and Otis Redding)?

I'd say she had a very bad experience on a personal level as well as professional, but nothing close to what you described, and miles from the horrors endured by those in the area where the bomb went off or by their relatives.

Leaking the bomber's name before all suspects had been rounded up was far more damaging to the investigation and potentially damaging to UK citizens' safety than publishing the forensic photos, yet the Times' explanation only covers the latter. Justify that one for us, Baquet.

Running these leaks is along the lines of publishing Wikileaks' cache of hacked DNC documents last fall, despite the knowledge that the documents had been given to Wikileaks by Russia in an obvious attempt to influence the election. In both cases I'm left wondering whose side The Times is on.

So what's all this nonsensical sensitivity, supposedly on Ariana Grande's behalf.

She was there. She was the reason her audience was there. It's totally bizarre to suggest that her name be downplayed.

Old fogey, that I am, I had never heard of Ariana until this happened. From what I've read since, she is a thoroughly decent person who genuinely shares Manchester's grief and has said she will there for a benefit concert (good for her); I'm sure she doesn't want to be billed as "anonymous performer.

Beth Flynn, deputy photo editor: "I actually tried very hard to find photos that didn’t feature minorities, because I had the same reservations about stereotypes."

According to the article, "About 44 million people received food stamp benefits in 2016". The problem is that one photo cannot represent the demographics of 44 million people. The Times should have published a pie chart instead of a photo, if "stereotypes" are a genuine concern.

Another problem is that a 2009 Times article reports demographics in a useless form: "Now nearly 12 percent of Americans receive aid — 28 percent of blacks, 15 percent of Latinos and 8 percent of whites." Those statistics cannot be used to construct a pie chart showing the distribution of food stamp recipients by "race".

BTW, that article has a photo of white food stamp recipients:

Food Stamp Use Soars, and Stigma Fades
By JASON DePARLE and ROBERT GEBELOFF
NOV. 28, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/29/us/29foodstamps.html

Reader Bill Coulter: "... Social Security is funded by payroll taxes entirely ..."

As the linked report shows, some SS income comes from interest on US treasury debt.

However, Hirschfeld Davis never mentions the word "debt" in her attempt at a clarification. I believe she means that future SS shortfalls may need to be filled by taking on debt, but the linked report doesn't seem to say that.

2016 Social Security Trustees Report
https://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TR/2016/tr2016.pdf

It's OK to be concerned about typecasting as long as you don't do much about it? I mean, you're in New York City; there's got to be some of the millions who live there who use food stamps. Would it be beyond the photo editor's resources to send a person with a camera out to photograph a few of them? How about an unpaid intern with a cell phone?

On second reading, after reading a large swath of the Social Security Trustees report, Julie Hirscfeld Davis gave a thoroughly disingenuous answer, and Spayd uncritically waved it through.
The Trustees' report makes it clear that SS paying out more in benefits than it takes in, "to the tune of $73 billion last year," is only true IF ONE OMITS THE INTEREST EARNED ON THE TRUST FUND. But there is no good reason at all to do that, given that the Trust Fund balance last year was well north of $2.5 TRILLION, invested, I think, in Treasury bonds. Hirschfeld Davis notes that there is an ongoing surplus, that is contributions+interest>payments, and that it would continue as such until 2025.
So HOW is it one of the "two largest drivers of the nation's debt?"
Perhaps Hirschfeld Davis and Spayd could look up how Reagan broke the covenant between workers, employers and the government by raiding the Social Security Trust Fund.
Lifting or eliminating the cap on earnings subject to SS tax would make SS sustainable ad infinitum. A Professional athlete might pay SS on only a single paycheck. So would, say, Ginny Rometty, IBM CEO who, despite overseeing 20 straight quarters of declining revenue, still earns an astonishing $95 million.
Hirschfeld Davis has appalingly assumed the questionable claims of the likes of Paul Ryan and the Petersen Institute. That is a real problem, one that flew past Spayd.

"Unquestionably, Ariana Grande has been through the worst possible tragedy that a performer, anyone, could endure."

Really? I suggest that the Public Editor google the murdered Tejana singer Selena for the worst tragedy that a performer could endure.

Oh for the love of Pete! The public editor displays her stunning ignorance with this defense of The Times: "That’s a very clear explanation that I hope clarifies the issue. Thanks to Hirschfeld Davis for the explanation."

Actually, the explanation is completely wrong. As the Times reader pointed out to Spayd and Davis, both of whom ignore it, Social Security is running a surplus, Social Security is funded entirely by payroll taxes, Social Security is not adding one penny to the federal deficit.

the claim by Davis that Social Security is one of "the largest drivers of the nation's debt' is utterly false. And Liz Spayd, tapping into her deep well of right-wing ideology, spews out that false explanation and calls it a "very clear explanation."

Outrageous.

The Paris Bataclan attack was at an Eagles of Death Metal concert.

The Manchester attack was at an Ariana Grande concert.

Those are the facts.

Why hide them?