Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

In the Washington Post yesterday, Michael Fletcher wrote a piece about the Senate fight over unemployment benefits and illustrated it with the story of Dwight Michael Frazee, an unemployed construction worker who is one of the “99ers” — those who have been out of work for more than 99 weeks and whose unemployment benefits have therefore run out. Bob Somerby notes that Frazee is a little unclear on something:

Who does Frazee “blame” for his loss of benefits? Fletcher never makes this fully clear. But the quoted statements would seem to suggest that Frazee blames Obama.

….Does Frazee understand that “Obama and almost all the Democrats favor an extension of unemployment benefits?” Fletcher doesn’t seem to have asked. By the way: If Frazee reads Fletcher’s piece, as he presumably will, will he then understand the politics of this situation? How clearly does Fletcher explain this situation? There’s no “right” answer to that question — but Fletcher’s second paragraph seems to say that no one is trying to extend benefits for people like Frazee. We see other points of confusion as we peruse the piece.

Could you explain this ongoing situation? We’re not completely sure we could — and we’re not sure how much Fletcher helps.

This has been a major failing of the mainstream media for a long time. It’s always “Congress” that’s to blame for bills passing or not passing, not “Republicans” or “Democrats.” But the vast majority of the time, that’s not really the case: it’s one party or the other that’s largely at fault. Oddly, though, given that the press is usually pretty obsessed with horse race politics, they rarely play this up. If you read far enough into most Capitol Hill reporting, you’ll see genteel phrases like “mostly along party lines” or some such, but that’s about it. Unless you’re a fairly careful reader you won’t really realize that in the current Congress Republicans have routinely filibustered and obstructed practically every piece of legislation introduced.

Does Frazee realize that 98% of Democrats are in favor of extending his unemployment benefits and 93% of Republicans are opposed? That it’s not “Congress” standing in the way of his benefits, it’s the Republican Party? Apparently not. Reporters, editors, producers, and anchors ought to be asking themselves why that is. They might find it boring to keep writing headlines that explain what’s really happening, but that’s not much of an excuse for not doing their job.

UPDATE: I screwed up. This is a generally true statement about extending unemployment benefits, which breaks down strongly along party lines. However, it’s not a true statement about extending benefits past 99 weeks, which is Frazee’s problem. In fact, very few Democrats have demonstrated any serious concern about the 99ers.

WE CAME UP SHORT.

We just wrapped up a shorter-than-normal, urgent-as-ever fundraising drive and we came up about $45,000 short of our $300,000 goal.

That means we're going to have upwards of $350,000, maybe more, to raise in online donations between now and June 30, when our fiscal year ends and we have to get to break-even. And even though there's zero cushion to miss the mark, we won't be all that in your face about our fundraising again until June.

So we urgently need this specific ask, what you're reading right now, to start bringing in more donations than it ever has. The reality, for these next few months and next few years, is that we have to start finding ways to grow our online supporter base in a big way—and we're optimistic we can keep making real headway by being real with you about this.

Because the bottom line: Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism Mother Jones exists to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we hope you might consider pitching in before moving on to whatever it is you're about to do next. We really need to see if we'll be able to raise more with this real estate on a daily basis than we have been, so we're hoping to see a promising start.

payment methods

WE CAME UP SHORT.

We just wrapped up a shorter-than-normal, urgent-as-ever fundraising drive and we came up about $45,000 short of our $300,000 goal.

That means we're going to have upwards of $350,000, maybe more, to raise in online donations between now and June 30, when our fiscal year ends and we have to get to break-even. And even though there's zero cushion to miss the mark, we won't be all that in your face about our fundraising again until June.

So we urgently need this specific ask, what you're reading right now, to start bringing in more donations than it ever has. The reality, for these next few months and next few years, is that we have to start finding ways to grow our online supporter base in a big way—and we're optimistic we can keep making real headway by being real with you about this.

Because the bottom line: Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism Mother Jones exists to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we hope you might consider pitching in before moving on to whatever it is you're about to do next. We really need to see if we'll be able to raise more with this real estate on a daily basis than we have been, so we're hoping to see a promising start.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate