Those "Congressional" Jets

TW: I saw the headlines about Congress "buying 8 new jets" and thought "what are they thinking". Like I am sure the vast majority of folks I did not pay much attention to the story beyond the headline and moved on wishing the Dems in Congress were not so porkalicious. But I did have in the back of my mind that the headlines seemed a bit too stupid even for Congress. This story frames how media loves to stir up a ruckus (and these things work both ways).

From Columbia Journalism Review:
"Let’s throw a little water on The Wall Street Journal’s page-one scoop that Congress is buying eight private jets for $550 million.

...It’s reminiscent of the paper’s weak A1 pieces trying to create a congressional-expenses scandal like one that rocked the UK earlier this year—something I said had “more than a whiff of Rupert on” them.

First of all, the headline splashed across four columns at the top of page one: “Congress Gets an Upgrade: $500 Million Slated for Purchase of Eight More Planes as Lawmakers’ Travel Soars.”
But wait a second. These planes are for an Air Force fleet that’s barely used by Congress—at least compared to the others who also use it. Over the last five years, 86 percent of the use of the private-plane fleet has been by the White House and the military. Just 14.5 percent has been congressional use.

...The House Appropriations Committee says the new purchases are designed to replace seven aging and more expensive business jets. The net impact is one additional plane owned by the federal government and a substantial increase in its passenger capacity.

So it’s adding one plane, not eight, as the WSJ subhed implies. Changes the tenor of the story, no? Now it’s not quite such a juicy, Drudge-worthy, top of A1 piece.

...What does “expensive” mean? Is Congress actually going to save money long-term by switching to planes that are cheaper to fly? Or does it mean that the purchase prices of the planes are lower than the ones they’re replacing. The Journal doesn’t say. That’s critical information here.

...And what happens to the old planes? Presumably they’ll sell for something, offsetting part of that $550 million tab (although the market for planes isn’t exactly robust these days). That goes unexplored here.

...This is all too bad because there’s a legitimate story here about whether Congress should be spending half a billion dollars on private planes right now (does it make any economic sense given that they’re replacing “more expensive” planes?)—or whether it is abusing this privilege.
But you can’t trust this story because it distorts the facts to sex up the issue. It’s a very British-style presentation, unsurprising since the newspaper is now run by folks who hail from Fleet Street"
http://www.cjr.org/the_audit/journal_misleads_congress_jets.php