With all the misleading comparisons and inflated numbers in the press these days, what’s another few hundred million dollars? Internet and television news outlets, from MSNBC and Fox to the Daily Mail and The Guardian in Britain, have been criticizing Obama for having a $150 million inauguration and comparing it with Bush’s $42.3 million ceremony in 2005.  All this fuss over Obama’s extravagance relative to previous presidents would be warranted if these were the costs of each ceremony.  Too bad they aren’t.

Assuming that the estimate of $150 million, $160 million, or even $170 million depending on which misleading news source you look at, is valid, the comparison between Obama’s inauguration cost and Bush’s inauguration cost still isn’t.  The $150 million estimate includes security, whereas the figure of $42.3 million does not.  Security makes up the bulk of overall cost.  If we were to include security costs into the Bush figure, the number is actually slightly more than $157 million.  Interesting isn’t it?  That’s more than the estimate of $150 million for Obama’s inauguration.  If we were to believe some news claims that Obama is spending four times more than Bush did, Obama would have to spend over $600 million, something that is obviously not going to happen even by the most outrageous estimates.

Now, we don’t know what the exact cost of Obama’s inauguration will be.  It might indeed be the most expensive in American history.  However, even if it were, it wouldn’t be by the degree the media is marketing it to be.  And that’s a problem.  It’s fine for the media to question whether Obama’s inauguration is too extravagant, but it is not fine for reporters to use false comparisons to sell their point.  We need responsible reporting, not bandwagon sensationalism.

For more on the media’s portrayal of Obama’s inauguration costs, go to
Media Matters