More evidence that the media influences economic trends
April 7th, 2008 by Republican By DefaultDan Gainor in Investors Business Daily shows more evidence that negative talk in the media about the economy can actually convince people to hold of spending and cause a downturn in the economy.
Major downturns aren’t just caused by economic circumstances anymore. The news media will have done their best to help it along with years of negativity.
They’ve succeeded in part already. The March 18 USA Today reported a Gallup poll showing that 59% of Americans think a depression “lasting several years” is “likely,” and 79% are worried about the possibility.
Did the media get it right?
It’s a darker spin on a familiar theme. Since the economic recovery took hold in August 2003, journalists have warned of an impending and ominous recession. They were wrong in 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007. If they finally get it right, it’s almost by accident. At the same time, they underreported good news, hyped bad news and have done everything they could to undermine consumer confidence.
Such stories were commonplace. More than 2 million jobs were created in 2005, but that wasn’t the story. On the network news, more than half of the employment stories emphasized job losses.
In four years with more than 8 million added jobs, job-loss themes are still prevalent.
And that’s just one downbeat economic theme of many.
Every broadcast, it seems, warned about something involving the economy — jobs, growth, housing, outsourcing, retail sales. You name it, the media covered it. And their reporting was often wrong.
Take gas prices, a topic near and dear to our wallets these days. This spring, that gasoline could get close to $4.
But for years the networks have warned that gas prices would go that high and more.
At least 20 times from 2005 to 2007, the networks cautioned about prices hitting $5, and another six times for $6 or higher.
Does negative reporting have an impact?
Confidence was a key issue with the demise of Bear Stearns. Experts said investors had “lost confidence” in the firm. As Michael Darda of MKM Partners explained to NBC on March 14, we are coping with “the fear, with the crisis of confidence in credit.”
It’s no wonder. Investors have endured four years of TV reporters ignoring the recovery. In one 2005 story, Jim Acosta of the “CBS Evening News” described the 8,700 job cuts at General Motors: “Just three days before Thanksgiving, GM is carving up its work force like a Butterball turkey.”
Is the media aware of what they’re doing? Some are:
Some journalists are responsible and understand the problem. CNBC anchor Maria Bartiromo, on NBC’s “Today” in early February, acknowledged the media’s obsession with negative news: “We can talk ourselves into a recession, and that seems to be what we’re doing right now, and that certainly begets more weakness.”
First Amendment freedoms come with responsibility. The liberal media has completely ignored that responsibility and has turned itself into a political advocacy medium.
Previously on 5views.com:
Media misreporting economic news to influence elections?
April 7th, 2008 at 10:19 pm
Bernanke says that the economy will likely contract over the next half-year (meeting the technical definition of a recession, although he didn’t use the word). Is he ignoring his responsibility by giving bad news?
The truth is there is no responsibility clause associated with the First Amendment. I, and the press, should have–and do–every right to say things and print things that will hurt the economy, hurt the reputation of distinguished Americans, of American troops, or America as a whole, blaspheme like crazy against any or all religion.
I am fanatical about this.
What ticks me off is when people think that the First Amendment also comes with privileges that there should be no consequence to their speech (this is usually celebrities).
The Left has a serious problem with the First Amendment. “Hate speech” being the Left’s worst idea in a very long time and I’m not too wild about campaign finance reform. But the Right has equal problems with freedom of speech, when they want to block any speech anti-American, anti-troops, etc. The threats to free speech are from both sides and both are equally dangerous to it.
The New York Times might have a screamingly liberal bias, but the same thing that protects them protects the National Review, Michelle Malkin, and yourself. It’s what allows you to block RR Anderson from commenting on your site and not have the government intervene and what allows him to post satiric comics on his site.
You have railed many times against anti-troop demonstrations and liberal media, which–though I disagree with you–I will fight tooth and claw to make sure you can do. But I’m getting tired of the “responsibility” argument. There is none:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
And there shouldn’t be.
April 7th, 2008 at 10:35 pm
As it happens my quote of the day from Google fits with my sentiments nicely. Thomas Jefferson: I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.
April 7th, 2008 at 10:54 pm
I can see that you are fanatical about this.
So you’re saying that slander and libel should be legal? That the press can lie about anyone and anything they choose and there shouldn’t be any consequences?
What about yelling fire in a crowded theatre? Isn’t yelling ‘recession’ when there is none on the horizon somewhat akin to it?
The fact is there are responsibilities that go with the First Amendment even though it’s not stated right there. Simply put, one person’s freedom ends where someone else’s rights begin. The press was given freedoms to comment on public issues and public figures so that the American people could be informed of what their government was doing and who it was that was operating within the government.
The media has been screaming ‘recession’ in a crowded ecomony for years. My guess is that they’re doing it because there’s a Republican in the White House. The facts have usually been contrary to their economic so-called ‘reporting’. I say ’so-called’ because I don’t believe it is reporting. It’s nothing but slanted commentary based on half-truthes. If they would just come clean and admit that they’re spreading agitprop I wouldn’t have a problem with it.
Bernanke wasn’t even in office as the Fed Chair when the liberal media was claiming that recession was near. Prior to his statements indicating his recession fears (not yet saying that we were in recession) the economy was in a steady climb since the Bush tax cuts and other economic stimulus measures took hold (after 9/11) in 2003. Almost every time the media reported gains they’d downplay them, if they reported the gains at all. But bad news, whether it was news or just commentary, got ‘reported’ consistently.
As for RR Anderson, he was given plenty of opportunities and plenty of warnings. And the fact is I am not the government. I am a private citizen paying for a service so that I can provide a forum for discussion. I have the right to say who does and who doesn’t join in. This falls under the ‘freedom to assemble’ clause. He chose to be disruptive, so I chose to exclude him. I’m sure he won’t be the last. But, for the record, that comment wasn’t directed at you. I appreciate your comments here, even when we disagree. Your comments are usually on topic and fairly well thought through.
April 7th, 2008 at 11:06 pm
And I should add that I agree with you about government not infringing upon our liberties. I just believe that with those freedoms comes responsibility.
The problem with the media is being remedied without government having to interfere. It’s called the ‘new media’ and I’m enjoying it. With sites like http://newsbusters.org and http://MichelleMalkin.com we get to hear the rest of the facts and the other side of the stories ‘reported’ by the liberal media.
Then we have liberal politicians trying to bring back the so-called ‘fairness doctrine’ as means to inhibit the free speech of conservatives like Rush Limbaugh. We had our own version of it around here with KVI radio when they were attacked for advocating an initiative measure. Opponents claimed that it wasn’t free speech, it was advertising so it needed to be reported as a contribution to the elections commission. And I’m not a fan of McCain-Feingold either.
April 7th, 2008 at 11:12 pm
To be clear: I was arguing that freedom of speech is what allows you to ban RR. If newspapers, blogs, and publications were forced to allow others to speak on their pages, then freedom of speech would cease to exist because it would be lost in the noise. I am very tired, as you are, of people crying “free speech” when their comment gets moderated (this is different than saying whether it’s a good idea or not).
As for the rest of it, there is no responsibility associated with freedom of speech by law. Child pornography, libel (extremely hard to prove), and threats on the life of the President are some of the rare exceptions that I’m pretty ok with (the obscenity exception is more troubling because it’s so loose).
I don’t want to get into it on what the media says, spins, or claims because it’s irrelevant–they all get to do it, liberal and conservative alike. The press was given their freedoms not because they are supposed to inform the citizens, it’s because without them the press becomes tools of the state. You can argue that certain outlets are tools of one or the other party, justifiably at times, but that is different than being tools of the state.
I am fanatical because without that first amendment we’re screwed. We have a law that says I can say whatever nasty things come into my head on a streetcorner and no one can stop me. I can say my leaders are morons, are traitors, are corrupt, are cowards, and they can’t do anything to stop me or silence me. It is an incredible right we have. Not even England has anything like it. It’s what keeps us safe from the government, keeps innovation and new ideas moving, and keeps us on our toes, too. I can’t be thankful enough for it.
April 7th, 2008 at 11:20 pm
You can argue that certain outlets are tools of one or the other party, justifiably at times, but that is different than being tools of the state.
Well said.
I think we’ve gotten ourselves into a debate that has been running for more than a couple of centuries. We’re just tiny little players in a much bigger arena.
I, too, am thankful for the First Amendment, especially the ‘establishment’ clause, but not forgetting the ‘freedom to assemble’.
April 30th, 2008 at 1:12 pm
The reason for the liberal media downgrading the economy is much more nefarious than pinning the blame on Bush. In a university I work with a majority of outright communists - self-avowed Stalinists, Leninists or Maoists (this is their idea of ideological diversity) and they all subscribe to a Gramscian strategy of seeking outright to collapse capitalism. They strive to do this by maneuvering to capture (ALL) media and modes of transmission of (bourgeois) popular culture, prepping the grounds for socialism, and using democracy against the U.S. by “compromising” us on a slow road to communism. The fact that the “intelligentsia” would be the sole winners in a communist government scenario either escapes them or is an implicit part of their reasoning. Destroying confidence in the (capitalist) economy is a clear and substantiated mission of the left.