How NOT to dismantle welfare fraud arguments

This well intentioned editorial in the Bangor Daily News is a framing nightmare. Main argument? Reference the title: “Welfare fraud by providers is bigger problem than individual ‘welfare cheats.'” Effect of this kind of framing?
1. Repeating myths and destructive frames, even to refute them = reinforcing myths and destructive frames.
2. It provides anti-welfare folks sufficient evidence that it IS in fact a broken system – it’s just that they got wrong WHO was defrauding that system. Ugh

*Bonus: I threw the content of the editorial in a word cloud creator, and the result is the image below. Think that pretty much sums up the framing problems.

wordle

How’s the framing of the Obama campaign’s Truth Team?

Any chance I can twist arms for some commentary and conversation? I’m really curious as to others’ perspectives on this:

The Obama reelect campaign has initiated what they’re calling a Truth Team network. As described on the website “The Truth Team is a network of supporters of President Obama who are committed to responding to unfounded attacks and defending the President’s record. When you’re faced with someone who misrepresents the truth, you can find all the facts you need right here—along with ways to share the message with whoever needs to hear it.”

Elsewhere on this blog I’ve written that fighting misinformation with fact-based rebuttals is not effective, but I know this might be a different case – perhaps the Obama camp is trying to motivate the base with these reminders of the President’s record. But if they want to give that base talking points to use, are these the kind of talking point supporters need?

I’ve been thinking about this quite a bit since seeing a Truth Team release, this video blog from Stephanie Cutter, Deputy Campaign Manager.  Check out the video, and please share your insights!

-lynn