Media hysteria over supposed Meals On Wheels cuts debunked from

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/03/17/for-the-record-wh-budget-director-did-not-say-meals-on-wheels-did-not-show-results/

Gobbling up the misrepresentations and lies, even Seth Myers set aside time for a rant during his show.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=511&v=sIQ4ng0e1GU
Via the Daily Beast:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2017/03/17/seth-meyers-destroys-trump-s-meals-on-wheels-cuts-your-heart-is-so-small.html

“Meals on Wheels?!” the host asked, incredulously. “How dead inside do you have to be to not want old people to get food? Your heart is so small it makes your tiny hands look like catcher’s mitts.”


“Old people voted for you!” he continued. “Your key demographics were old people and older people. They believed you when you said you cared about them. There’s nothing more low-life than lying to the elderly. You should know that. You’re 70.”

While Meyers did not discuss his own connection to Meals on Wheels during his broadcast, he did reveal on Twitter that his mother is a volunteer for the program, writing, “My mom, who is also my hero, is a Meals on Wheels volunteer so I had some thoughts in tonight’s A CLOSER LOOK.”

For a refreshing change, it’s not only the right who are calling foul on the media’s knee-jerk shrieking about Trump’s diabolical plan to starve America’s elderly population; the left is also pushing back.

On the right, the National Review explains the myriad problems with the misleading and often downright false “reporting” by the national media.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/445878/meals-wheels-trump-budget-media-misleads-funding-cuts-kill-program

It made for great copy — irresistibly clickable and compulsively shareable. “Trump’s Budget Would Kill a Program That Feeds 2.4 Million Senior Citizens,” blared Time’s headline. “Trump Proposed Budget Eliminates Funds for Meals on Wheels,” claimed The Hill, in a piece that got 26,000 shares.

But it was false. And it wouldn’t have taken long for reporters to find and provide some needed context to the relationship between federal block grant programs, specifically Community Development Block Grants (CDBG), and the popular Meals on Wheels program.

I started on the organization’s own website. From Thursday’s conversation in the press, it was easy to assume that block grant programs — CDBG and similar block grants for community services and social services — are the main source of federal funding for Meals on Wheels. Not so.

Instead, as the national site explains, the major source of federal funding for the programs, accounting for 35 percent of overall local budgets, comes through the Sixties-era Older Americans Act. (Local programs also obtain support from state and county governments, private donors, and so on.)

According to the website, cuts have not been announced in Older Americans Act funding, although the group fears that they may lie ahead.

So why all the outrage?

The National Review continues:

So where do the federal block grant programs come in? Well, they give states and localities a lot of discretion on where to allocate the money. One option is to add money to supplement Meals on Wheels funding. Some do use it for that purpose.

But as Scott Shackford makes clear in his new piece for Reason, that isn’t what CDBG is mostly about. CDBG funds regularly go into pork-barrel and business-subsidy schemes with a cronyish flavor. That’s why the program has been a prime target for budget-cutters for decades, in administration after administration.

It’s important to the CDBG program’s political durability that its grantees wind up sprinkling a bit of extra money on popular programs mostly funded by other means. That way, defenders can argue that the block grants “fund programs like Meals on Wheels.”

That’s what happened in the press this week. The New York Times got things rolling by reporting that the new budget proposes “the complete elimination of the $3 billion Community Development Block Grant program, which funds popular programs like Meals on Wheels, housing assistance and other community assistance efforts.”

CNN’s Jake Tapper then boiled it down to a tweet: “On chopping block: $3 billion Community Development Block Grant program, which funds programs like Meals on Wheels.”

The NYT and Tapper are wrong, something that even a moderately curious person might easily check by simply going to the Meals on Wheels website.
http://www.mealsonwheelsamerica.org/national/financials

Over at Mother Jones, a progressive website, they call the media spin on this portion of the proposed Trump budget “ridiculous” and lay out exactly why it is so.
http://m.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2017/03/meals

Here’s what really happened:

The Department of Housing and Urban Development runs a program called Community Development Block Grants. It’s exactly what it sounds like. It provides funds to states that they can use for a variety of approved purposes.
Last year, the Obama administration recommended cutting its budget from $3 billion to $2.8 billion.
This year, Mulvaney proposed that the program be eliminated entirely. Here’s what the Trump budget has to say about it:
Eliminates funding for the Community Development Block Grant program, a savings of $3 billion from the 2017 annualized CR level. The Federal Government has spent over $150 billion on this block grant since its inception in 1974, but the program is not well-targeted to the poorest populations and has not demonstrated results. The Budget devolves community and economic development activities to the State and local level, and redirects Federal resources to other activities.

Some bright bulb noticed that a few states use a small portion of their HUD CDBG money to fund Meals on Wheels. Actually, small isn’t the right word. Microscopic is the the right word. Elderly nutrition programs like Meals on Wheels receive about $700 million from other government sources—most of which aren’t targeted one way or the other in the Trump budget—but hardly anything from CDBG grants.
Here is Mulvaney’s full quote after getting a question that, for some reason, focused on Meals on Wheels:
Housing and Urban Development, and the Community Development Block Grants, aren’t exclusively about housing. They support a variety of different programs, including, in part, Meals on Wheels. In Austin Texas today, one organization there that delivers those meals to thousands of elderly, says that those citizens will no longer be able to be provided those meals. So what do you say to those American who are ultimately losing out?

As you know, Meals on Wheels is not a federal program. It’s part of the CDBGs, the block grants, that we give to the states. And there have been many states that have made the decision to use that money for Meals on Wheels.

Here’s what I can tell you about CDBGs, because that’s what we fund, is that we’ve spent $150 billion on those programs since the 1970s. The CDBGs have been identified as programs by the second Bush administration as ones that were just not showing any results. We can’t do that anymore. We can’t spend money on programs just because they sound good. And great, Meals on Wheels sounds great. Again, that’s a state decision to fund that particular program.

But to take federal money and give it to the states and say we want to give you money for programs that don’t work, I can’t defend that anymore. We cannot defend that anymore. We’re $20 trillion in debt, we’re going to spend money, we’re going to spend a lot of money, but we’re not going to spend it on programs that cannot show that they actually deliver the promises that we’ve made to people. [emphasis not mine]

Mother Jones further notes that the majority of federal funding for Meals on Wheels doesn’t even come from HUD in the first place.

I’m no expert on community block grants. I don’t know if they’re a good idea or not. And God knows the Trump “skinny budget” is a disgraceful piece of work for the richest country on the planet. But spinning this as “Mulvaney guts Meals on Wheels” is pretty ridiculous.

The vast majority of federal funding for Meals on Wheels—which comes via HHS’s Administration on Aging, not HUD’s CDBGs—remains intact. Someone managed to plant this idea with reporters, and more power to them. Good job! But reporters ought to be smart enough not to fall for it.

It’s tempting to file this away as #WhyTrumpWon and as further proof of media bias, but in light of the all-out attacks on the president from a media that sees itself as part of the regressive “resistance,” it might be more complicated than simple Trump Derangement Syndrome. They seem perfectly happy to toss the remaining tattered shreds of their credibility to the winds in pursuit of whipping the public into a frenzy in order to “stop Trump.”

Unfortunately, the fall-out from this willful lack of interest in reporting the truth has the seemingly intended effect, outraging ordinary Americans who take to social media repeating the misleading information they’ve been spoon fed by the media.

The problem for the dishonest media, however, is that all of this outrage is ultimately impotent because the cause of it simply doesn’t exist.

No one likes being lied to and used as a political tool, so when it finally seeps down to these people that what they believe to be true is not and that Meals on Wheels is not in danger, they’ll not only stop being outraged but will be wary of jumping through these media-constructed hoops in future.

>>123282
You are under the assumption the average person cares enough to follow up on this story to see the truth. This is especially true because the media has a vested interest in not making itself look like a fool and will not post a correction.

The end result of this whole debacle is that Trump looks like a fool to the average citizen, people get to virtue signal on social media and meals on wheels continues business as usual.

This is literally Kony 2012 levels of emotional manipulation and they are going to get away with it.

OP you gotta work on your link positioning and quoting.

>>123299
Noted, will do in future posts.

>>123282
Very interesting read but as >>123299 it really takes away from your argument. Keep in mind 45% of /news/ are occupydemocrat users and the other 45% are from stormfront so they'll need a tl;dr and a news source to back it up because they are both retarded and don't know how to read.
Thanks for sharing though, it was a nice read!

>>123285
>This is especially true because the media has a vested interest in not making itself look like a fool and will not post a correction.

I don't know that that's true as a rule. In fact I'd tend to guess it isn't for more popular outlets.

Simply because most audiences are fairly forgiving of their media.

If someone points out a factual error in an article and the audience sees a disclaimer added later to correct for that, most people will say, OK, I understand mistakes happened and they tried to correct it.

If you don't add that disclaimer, you maybe protect some of your credibility but also risk much more if you're later found out.

Media that is more popular and less niche tends to be a safer bet because it is more heavily scrutinized and thus more likely to be discovered for not addressing factual errors. I don't recall a case where CNN was identified as having made an error and did not attempt to make any correction.

>>123274 (OP)
>The media, however, doesn’t let facts get in the way of their faux outrage, fear-mongering, and fake news.

>faux outrage

How is this fake outrage? The WH budget director singled out 'meals on wheels' as an example of a government funded program that doesn't work and thus can't be afforded when the budget came out. Anyone would read into that that the program was being considered for being cut.

The outrage wasn't fake. It's a fair criticism to say more research should have been done.

But it's not surprising to see a budget with such extraordinary cuts to domestic spending, and some otherwise reputable sites misreading the effects of that, and in turn being reported by other websites that source the original stories.

>fearmongering

I think Trump has done a pretty good job creating fear himself. He certainly hasn't shied from publicly making veiled threats of violence toward some Americans.

You can't make threats from a position of power over others and then complain when people fear the worst.