The Washington Post had a front page story on Tuesday July 8 with a headline about the candidates' plans to "save" Social Security, here. The quote marks in this blog hede are mine because it seems to me that "saving" Social Security is a political gimmick.
You get credit from voters who want to move retirement income to the private sector, or from voters who want to keep things as they are, or tweak them slightly. But does Social Security need to be saved? This thing isn't going over a cliff. Just ask your mother who is kept from abject poverty because of Social Security -- and ask her about her mother, and her grandmother.
As journalists we have a different job -- we need to find the right word, whether we use print, digital or video images. If we worry along with the politicians about "saving" Social security, are we playing right into their "elect me to save Topic X" agenda?
I'd welcome your thoughts.
Earlier Blog Posts
RESOURCES: for journalists covering the floods and…
June 19, 2008
Inside Myanmar 5: People, democracy lose
June 11, 2008
Inside Myanmar 4: Repercussions & Concessions
May 27, 2008
Inside Myanmar 3: “only a fraction of the aid…
May 22, 2008
INSIDE MYANMAR 2: NO FOOD, NO AID, BUT LIQUOR STORES…
May 19, 2008