[amscanne]

Increasing funding for enforcement for the IRS is something that I personally feel is a good thing, but I think it’s fair to cover it in light of the fact that it seems to be colored by politics, like so much else. Why on earth would the Democrats pronounce that it won’t be used to audit anywhere earning less than $400k? As an extension of the anti-rich rhetoric, it’s no longer a simple “bureaucratic funding decision” and should be covered/discussed. (Not that I fully agree with the tone or manner of coverage, but you can’t claim that it’s not news.)

[ajross]

I keep bouncing around on how to respond to this. But really you have this exactly backwards: you think we should pay more attention to a subject (i.e. dedicate our limited "news" bandwidth to understanding it) because political actors want us to think it's important.

And, no, I think that's exactly backwards. The fact that one side is predicting tax armageddon and the other is explaining that it only soaks the rich is an easy cue that this is not a subject with any real truth to it, because if there were then there would be simple answers and not spin. And there is a simple answer, and it's that "The IRS got a moderate funding bump in this bill". And that simple answer is all I need.

And it's all you should need too. The only people who want more coverage of the subject are the ones trying to change your mind about it (or reinforce your priors). And those are the people you should be listening to the least.

[amscanne]

Nothing in my comment prescribes who or what you should pay attention to.

First you’re bothered by what networks are covering. Then I explain why these topics may be interesting. So then you say I’m backwards because I shouldn’t pay attention to what they are covering. Good grief: why are you bothering to complain about what they’re covering in the first place? Isn’t your first comment backwards for the exact same reason?