Does Truth Matter? Not To Ben Smith

I never met or spoke with quintessential Inside-the-Beltway political scribe Ben Smith. I never found his Politico gossip column interesting enough to read and I laughed when he tried belittling my efforts on behalf of progressive candidates by describing me as a former L.A. d.j. He had it wrong, though not 100% wrong. My first job in the music business, when I was a teenager, was working on a college radio station, WUSB on Long Island. But if Smith was a journalist instead of a propaganda tool, he would have mentioned-- especially after other bloggers corrected him-- that I was more recently the former president of one of the biggest and most successful record companies in the world. But that didn't fit into the harmlessly deceptive narrative Smith was attempting to create on behalf of one of his cronies. He works for a different website now and he made national news last week by defending Paul Ryan's vociferous jihad against Truth.

I'm not trying to claim Smith is being paid by the Romney campaign-- I'd bet he's not-- or that he's even necessarily a Republican or a conservative-- although I wouldn't wager on that one. I'm just saying he's looking to promote himself by purposefully failing at the journalism part of his job. Paul Ryan is now widely discredited as a liar among journalists who have finally been forced to pay attention to the bullshit spewing out of him. That's inconsequential to Ben Smith. Paul Ryan has been lying-- and blatantly-- about his roadmap, his budget and about healthcare-- for many years. And you don't have to have paid any attention to a former dj to know it. Princeton Economics Professor and Nobel Prize laureate Paul Krugman has been patiently explaining it in the NY Times for years. Surely even Smith knows what a flimflam man is. And former Labor Secretary and UC, Berkeley Dean Robert Reich has patiently explained how the entire Romney-Ryan campaign is built on a flimsy tissue of blatant lies. He even makes little cartoon videos about it for busy self-promoters with short attention spans.



So why is Smith defending Ryan and excusing his campaign of lies? No idea what his motivations are, just the website he works for ought to get to the bottom of them. As ThinkProgress pointed out yesterday, "Smith doesn’t really try to argue that Ryan’s statements are actually true. He just employs language to diminish their importance. The piece refers to 'exaggerations,' 'simplifications,' 'being tendentious,' and ''caricature[s]'.”

Smith is correct, however, that Ryan would “turn Medicare into a less-expensive voucher system and … cut health care spending for poor people deeply.” That’s why his false statements about his plans are so consequential. He’s attempting to mislead the American people into accepting a policy agenda that, if presented honestly, they would be unlikely to support.

In his convention speech, Ryan was not honest about how he would “turn Medicare into a less-expensive voucher system.” Ryan said he “will protect and strengthen Medicare.” He didn’t admit that he plans to “cut health care spending for poor people deeply.” Rather, Ryan said the “truest measure of any society is how it treats those who cannot defend or care for themselves.”

Smith acknowledges Obama’s policies would “maintain” the current Medicare program. But Ryan told millions of people that “the greatest threat to Medicare is Obamacare,” blasting Obama for “$716 billion, funneled out of Medicare.” Ryan doesn’t mention that he included the same savings, which come from providers not recipients, in his own plan and that Obamacare provides billions in additional benefits to Medicare recipients and extends the life of the program by eight years.

Smith’s defense of Ryan’s claims on welfare reform, which even Republican governors supporting Romney and Ryan have acknowledged are false, is weaker. But his underlying point is the same. Underneath the false statements, there is a real policy dispute, so we should cut Ryan some slack.

Smith’s defense of Ryan’s claims on welfare reform, which even Republican governors supporting Romney and Ryan have acknowledged are false, is weaker. But his underlying point is the same. Underneath the false statements, there is a real policy dispute, so we should cut Ryan some slack.

The opposite is true. In 2008, Hillary Clinton claimed she came under sniper fire when she landed at the Tuzla Air Base in Bosnia in 1996. Video of the incident proved this never occured. What Clinton said was clearly false but there were no obvious policy consequences. She was not, after all, basing her campaign on the idea she would be quick on her feet on the battlefield.

Although Clinton acknowledged her error, Smith-- who was writing at the time for Politico-- had no issues with relentlessly covering the story for weeks. You can see examples of his coverage here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. He was just one of many reporters covering the story for Politico.

Paul Ryan’s false statements on matters of real importance deserve more, not less, scrutiny.

But Ben Smith has his own narrative to create and "matters of real importance" can't be allowed to get in the way, regardless of any potential consequences for America.