I occasionally use the term “idiotorial” to describe New York Times editorials.
But yesterday\’s editorial about budget cuts to the IRS is more a “misleaditorial”: i.e. it is not ridiculous so much as it is intentionally, artfully misleading.
The Times complains – probably correctly – that the IRS is being hit with budget cuts, in part, because of its holy war on 501(c)4 applicants with names suggesting they opposed President Obama\’s policies.
As you may remember, many such organizations were put in limbo – neither accepted, nor rejected (which would require a stated reason and would enable the organization to file an appeal). Meanwhile, overtly political left wing entities – like Media Matters, to name just one – sailed on through to approval.
In any event, in making its case, the editorial tells the supposedly uber-enlightened New York Times readership:
Itamounts to payback demanded by House Republicans to penalize theI.R.S. for daring to scrutinize Tea Party operations that tried toclaim exemptions under the tax code for nonpolitical groups.Democratic groups trying the same thing were also scrutinized.
Democratic groups trying the same thing were also scrutinized? That so?
With an imaginary hat tip to Clay Waters of newsbusters.org, here are excerpts from the House Oversight Committee\’s summary discussing the “evenhandedness” of this effort:
IRS’s three “test” cases were all conservative organizations: Prescott Tea Party, American Junto, the Albuquerque Tea Party. (pp. 14-18)
Congressional Democrats made misleading claims about the targeting. (pp. 7-13)
IRS selectively released documents supporting the misleading claims. (pp. 11)
MYTH: Progressive groups were also targeted. Only seven applications in the IRS backlog contained the word “progressive,” all of which were then approved by the IRS, while Tea Party groups received unprecedented review and experienced years-long delays. While some liberal-oriented groups were singled out for scrutiny, evidence shows it was due to non-political reasons. (pp. 32-35)
And, if that is not enough, trust me; there\’s plenty more. Please use the link I\’ve provided and read the entire summary.
By the way, isn\’t this this the same IRS whose head of the Tax-Exempt division, lois “liar” lerner, has pled the 5th rather than answer questions related to the targeting of Obama-critical applicants? And whose key people all had email accounts that mysteriously vanished? Are those the actions of a government agency with nothing to hide? Just asking.
Let me end by pointing out that I am old enough to remember when the New York Times was considered a beacon of full, fair news reportage.
That makes me pretty old, doesn\’t it?
