When a writer that respects his audience sets out to write an article, he keeps in mind the fact that the readers will invest time and mental energy reading his article, thus expect value for their investment. And so, the writer does his best to give them the quality they expect and deserve.
If
the writer is a reporter, he’ll gather as much facts about the story he is
telling as possible, and will report it as clearly and accurately as he can. If
there is more to the story about which he does not have enough details as yet,
he might say so in his piece, and tell the audience to stay tuned because he may
have to amend the story or add new details, which he’ll do as soon as he
obtains any new information.
If
the writer is a commentator, he’ll have an assortment of ideas percolating
inside his head, each of which itching to see itself come out and go into
print. However, to write a coherent article, the commentator will first decide
what it is that he wants to say, and then choose from the ideas, which will do
better at carrying his message. Once settled on a collection, he’ll compose the
piece that expresses his opinion, and hope that his readers will find it worthy
of the time and energy they spent reading it.
Another
genre of articles mixes historical facts and opinions. Usually, the piece that
the writer composes would be essentially one of opinions backed by historical
facts, brought into the conversation to buttress the opinions. Conversely, the
piece could be essentially one of historical facts, into which the writer would
occasionally inject an opinion of his own or that of someone he considers a
mentor.
At
times, there can also be an article like the one that came under the title:
“Milton Friedman’s Revenge,” and the subtitle: “The specter of inflation haunts
Joe Biden’s presidency.” It was written by Matthew Continetti and published on
May 8, 2021 in National Review Online. It is in a category all its own.
Matthew
Continetti began by telling an untruth that is the exaggeration of something
that did not happen. Weird, you say? You are right. And there is a reason why
this whole thing came out the way that it did, as you’ll soon find out. We
begin by reviewing what the real story was about. Simply stated, here it is: In
response to a question, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen responded that yes, the
Federal Reserves may one day raise interest rates to make sure that the economy
does not overheat.
Guess
what, my friend, this happens all the time especially when the rates are as low
as they are today, and have no way to go but up. Guess what else is happening
at this time? The stock market is choppy. What does that mean? It means the
market is going up and down like a yoyo several times the same day, even the
same hour. Can you say the market is tanking and flying off? No, you can’t. What
you can say is that the market is dipping and rising. That’s because to say
that the market has tanked, it would have to precipitously dip something like 4
or 5 percent, and stay down till closing time.
Even
though, according to Continetti himself, “anyone with a basic understanding of
economics knew what she [Yellen] was talking about,” he made an erroneous
connection between what she said, and a market dip that did not even happen,
which he falsely called a “tanking.” As if this were not enough hooey for one day,
he proceeded to connect the false narrative he just created, with what Yellen had
said later on that day in response to yet another question: “That [an
overheating economy] is not something I am predicting or recommending”.
So
then, what did Matthew Continetti accomplish? Well, having gone through great
lengths to stitch together separate events, and make them sound like a single
story where there was no story to tell, Continetti finally told the readers
what he’s been trying to do all along. He tried to draw blood out of stone. Speaking
of what Yellen had said, here is how he went about doing just that:
“No,
of course not. But it [economy overheating] still might happen anyway. A
specter is haunting the Biden administration — the specter of inflation”.
As
you can see, Matthew Continetti created a story where there was no story to
tell. And this is when you realize that his article is a piece of political
propaganda disguised as an opinion piece, supposedly based on the dispassionate
observation of facts.
In
reality, however, it is nothing more than a piece in which the facts on the
ground were stitched together in such a way as to create a set of alternative facts,
which are far removed from the meaning of the original set.
Finally, and speaking of Milton Friedman, it is difficult to imagine him laugh at the specter of a runaway inflation such as Continetti suggested might happen. Friedman was a mature and serious man that did not allow politics to spoil his judgment.