The web-site “Fair,” that describes itself as a “national media watch group,” in a post entitled, “Media Malpractice on Debt Ceiling,” says this debt limit debate illustrates how the corporate media pushes the national discussion towards the right. It cites five areas:

Why Is the Debt Ceiling Being Raised?

While some coverage correctly pointed out that raising the debt ceiling has always been a routine political maneuver, Republican rhetoric and right-wing commentary portrayed the current round as a consequence of Barack Obama’s “big government” spending philosophy.

What was rarely explained is the fact that raising the debt ceiling is a consequence of previous budget decisions made by Congress (New York Times, 7/28/11)–like a massive tax cut tilted towards the wealthy, two major wars and, most of all, the effects of a major recession.

Both sides equally intrasigent?

Many writers have noted the partisan negotiations were presented through a distorted “both sides must compromise” lens. The media’s aversion to pointing out when one side is more prone to obstruction or exaggeration than the other makes it difficult for voters to understand what is happening–and does little to dissuade lawmakers from engaging in similar behavior in the future.

Debate Way Off to the Right

Often lost amidst all the talk about rancor and compromise is the fact that the entire debate between party leaders and the White House has shifted well to the right. Republicans would only support raising the debt limit if it came with cuts that would exceed the increase in borrowing power. …

Finding the ‘Center’

There is a long-established pattern of corporate media advising Democrats to move to the “middle,” which in practice means shifting to the right. This has been a constant presence throughout this debate. With a very Republican-friendly solution perhaps at hand, some accounts are portraying this as a deft move to the middle by Obama. The fact that liberals are opposed to Obama’s proposals only serves to demonstrate that he is on the right track.

Were There Budget Alternatives?

If this debate was really about dealing with the nation’s long-term debt/deficit issues, then the press would seriously examine a range of ideas for addressing these problems. But the most serious progressive alternative, the People’s Budget, was never given significant attention in the corporate media–in contrast to Republican Rep. Paul Ryan’s budget plan, which, contrary to the rhetoric, failed to meaningfully reduce the deficit at all (Extra!, 6/11).

The corporate media’s abject failure to seriously examine a budget proposal that is more in line with majority public opinion suggests that serious dysfunction is not limited to Beltway political leaders.

In a NYT article, “The President Surrenders,” Nobel winning economist Paul Krugman calls the debt deal an “abject surrender on the part of the president.” He calls it, “a catastrophe on multiple levels.” He says it is, “a disaster for the nation”:

1. It will damage an already depressed economy;
2. It will probably make America’s long-run deficit problem worse, not better;
3. By demonstrating that raw extortion works and carries no political cost, it will take America a long way down the road to banana-republic status.

Krugman says, “Those demanding spending cuts now are like medieval doctors who treated the sick by bleeding them, and thereby made them even sicker. … The worst thing you can do in these circumstances is slash government spending, since that will depress the economy even further.”

Krugman seems thoroughly disappointed with President Obama. He writes, “Republicans will surely be emboldened by the way Mr. Obama keeps folding in the face of their threats. He surrendered last December, extending all the Bush tax cuts; he surrendered in the spring when they threatened to shut down the government; and he has now surrendered on a grand scale to raw extortion over the debt ceiling. Maybe it’s just me, but I see a pattern here.”

Krugman says, “What Republicans have just gotten away with calls our whole system of government into question. After all, how can American democracy work if whichever party is most prepared to be ruthless, to threaten the nation’s economic security, gets to dictate policy? “