The fraternity ritual of using totally meaningless numbers in budget stories is really running wild. Today the NYT discussed the stimulus package that Congress is considering for next year and never bothered to tell readers that the $400-$500 billion cost would be over the next two years.
Maybe NYT readers all knew that the spending would take place over two years, but I doubt this is the case. Of course, even if they did know that the spending would be over two years, it's unlikely that they really have a sense of how large this spending is relative to the budget or the economy. (The proposed package would be equal to between 7-8 percent of projected spending and 1.3-1.7 percent of GDP.)
It is really simple to express budget numbers in ways that are meaningful to readers. There is no excuse for not taking the 30 second necessary to do it.
[The Post is no better.]
A second Trump administration will cement a right-wing majority on the Supreme Court for a generation, and put our collective future in the hands of someone who will be virtually unchecked by our institutions. The country has shifted rightward, and the reverberations will ensue for potentially the next few decades. In this climate, a robust independent media ecosystem will be more important than ever. We're committed to bringing you the latest news on how Trump's agenda will actually affect the American people, shining a light on the stories corporate media overlooks and keeping the public informed about how power really works in this country.
Quality journalism is expensive to produce, and we don't have corporate backers to rely on to fund what we do. Everything we do is thanks to our incredible community of readers, who chip in a few dollars at a time to make our work possible. Any amount you give today will help us continue reporting on what matters to our democracy.
