How many of you believe the news media is a BIG part of the problem?

[MichaelB]

From Bloomberg this morning Bloomberg.com: Worldwide

Quote:

Dec. 24 (Bloomberg) -- Consumer spending adjusted for inflation in the U.S. rose in November by the most in almost two years, a sign that falling gasoline prices are giving Americans more cash to spend for the holidays.

So what do we conclude about the economy? Or Bloomberg?

I think we give too much credit and blame to media. More critical viewing, reading and thinking is called for. Improved reporting would follow.

Michael

[audreyh1]

I think the news media is a SMALL part of the problem.

Audrey

[Rustic23]

In Statistic 101 class the professor pointed out that it is natural to look at the world through your own eyes and if you are going to draw conclusion you will be in error. He then pointed out the the majority of the people in the class think alike when it comes to most issues, yet we in no way represent the majority of the population.

Given that, you would expect most of this board to not understand the effect the media has on the general public. Members of this board do not represent the general public. The save more, spend less, think about their purchases, have a tendency to think for themselves, and the list could go on. You certainly can't expect the media to police themselves, they see nothing wrong with what they are doing.

Bill Clinton won his election with the aid of a simple phrase 'It's the economy stupid'. Turns out this can be rephrased 'It's the consumer stupid', and, the majority of the consumers get their information from 1. TV 2. Radio and 3. Printed material. For the year leading up to the election the press told the consumer he was in trouble. Only problem is, you can't turn this around quickly. It is self feeding.

As I mentioned earlier 93% of Americans have a job. However 30% of them expect to loose their job. That would place the Unemployment rate at 36%! A number 11% higher than the 25% that it attained during the Great Depression. I have not heard any creditable economist say we are headed for 'Great Depression' style unemployment, yet, the press is reporting and acting like we are already there. This breeds more fear, more curtailment of spending, more layoff, a raising of the percentage of those that expect to loose their job, and the circle grows.

If the press would wake up on the sunny side of the bed, they would do much to curb this cycle.

[Bestwifeever]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rustic23 In Statistic 101 class the professor pointed out that it is natural to look at the world through your own eyes and if you are going to draw conclusion you will be in error. He then pointed out the the majority of the people in the class think alike when it comes to most issues, yet we in no way represent the majority of the population. Given that, you would expect most of this board to not understand the effect the media has on the general public. Members of this board do not represent the general public. The save more, spend less, think about their purchases, have a tendency to think for themselves, and the list could go on. You certainly can't expect the media to police themselves, they see nothing wrong with what they are doing. Bill Clinton won his election with the aid of a simple phrase 'It's the economy stupid'. Turns out this can be rephrased 'It's the consumer stupid', and, the majority of the consumers get their information from 1. TV 2. Radio and 3. Printed material. For the year leading up to the election the press told the consumer he was in trouble. Only problem is, you can't turn this around quickly. It is self feeding. As I mentioned earlier 93% of Americans have a job. However 30% of them expect to loose their job. That would place the Unemployment rate at 36%! A number 11% higher than the 25% that it attained during the Great Depression. I have not heard any creditable economist say we are headed for 'Great Depression' style unemployment, yet, the press is reporting and acting like we are already there. This breeds more fear, more curtailment of spending, more layoff, a raising of the percentage of those that expect to loose their job, and the circle grows. If the press would wake up on the sunny side of the bed, they would do much to curb this cycle.

I added the bold--This really makes sense when you consider that the people who work in media are very vulnerable to the economy right about now (bankrupt newspapers, falling TV news audiences, layoffs everywhere in the media industry). No wonder all the news is focused on "these trying/tough/troubled economic times/recession/downturns." The people writing the news stories are worried about their own jobs and perhaps that is coloring the coverage.

But the press probably doesn't have a "sunny side of the bed," as the industry will evolve into something new.

On the other hand I don't know how much of a direct influence the press is having, since the general public is no longer subscribing to newspapers or watching the news--that's the cause of the media's worry about their own future.

By the way, they are running the exact same kind of stories about down and out families in our papers to encourage donations that they have always run, but this year all the families' problems are caused only by these tough economic times, according to the reporters.

[Rustic23]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bestwifeever On the other hand I don't know how much of a direct influence the press is having, since the general public is no longer subscribing to newspapers or watching the news--that's the cause of the media's worry about their own future.

I guess I would take exception to this statement. News paper subscriptions may be down, but it is far from zero. While people seem to have been changing from the networks news to cable news, I have not seen any statistics that show folks are no longer getting news from TV. As to the Web for a source of news. The majority of news on the web is still provided by professional journalist. While there are alternative news sites, if you do a Google News search on the economy a majority of the articles will come from established news channels.

Don't mean this as an argument point, however, it is another case of the press lamenting that 'People are getting their news from the web'. Even the folks here that may get a good deal of the information from the web, the majority of sites with news stories are quoted from mainline printed sources like WSF, Money Mag., Reuters etc.

[Zathras]

Rustic, aren't you doing the same thing as the media in the opposite direction?

Quote:

As I mentioned earlier 93% of Americans have a job.

I don't believe that is true. Your general point is good, but the numbers you use aren't.
Don't the unemployment numbers not count people that have stopped looking, or have been unemployed for a certain amount of time? I don't think the unemployment numbers count me (retired) either.
So the true number of Americans that are employed may be 90% or 80%. I assume you are also not including children not of working age in 'Americans' otherwise the number goes down even more.
Are there any stats on how many jobs are in America?

[ziggy29]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zathras I don't believe that is true. Your general point is good, but the numbers you use aren't. Don't the unemployment numbers not count people that have stopped looking, or have been unemployed for a certain amount of time? I don't think the unemployment numbers count me (retired) either. So the true number of Americans that are employed may be 90% or 80%. I assume you are also not including children not of working age in 'Americans' otherwise the number goes down even more. Are there any stats on how many jobs are in America?

Fair enough. I know my wife is looking for work and has been for months, but because she was voluntarily out of the work force for a while, she is not counted in the statistics at all. As far as we're concerned, she's "unemployed" -- but the numbers won't acknowledge it.

I'll bet many retirees are also unsuccessfully looking for work, and they aren't included in the stats either.

So I doubt that 93% of the people who want work have it. But the point remains that the vast majority are still employed and probably still will be even at the bottom of this mess.

[W2R]

As I recall the stuff hit the fan on or around September 17th, and at that time the Dow was at around 10,600. I would LOVE to be back where we were before all these bailouts "saved our economy" or whatever.

It sure seems to me that the media created panic which caused many of our present problems. But then, that could be a coincidence. Apparently there were international aspects to this as well.

So, all in all, my answer to the original question is that I simply do not have any idea, though it is quite possible that the media frenzy played a role in all this.

[Rustic23]

OK,
How do we talk about the statistics? Given your point of view, the 6% unemployment rate is also worthless, as if the 25% unemployment rate of the Great Depression. As is the 40,000 people lost their jobs last week, as that number does not really include everyone that lost a job. The kid that mows lawns is not counted, the maid that was never counted as employed is not counted. Thirty percent of people fear loosing their job. That too is a number from some poll and can not be substantiated.

To get an absolute accurate jobless number is most likely impossible, and unnecessary, as economist are looking at trends and attempting to compare current conditions to known previous conditions in order to formulate good public policy to facilitate change when necessary. So the go with the Labor Department's figures with all their warts.

That does not change the fact that the press either out of stupidity, greed, or personal agenda has been hyping a poor economy for over a year and the average consumer believes they are in bad shape when the majority of them are not!

I still contend that a large portion of journalist are lazy and follow the herd. As John Stossel pointed out if one is specials 'Sharks in the water', they will all pile on and each must have a story about how dangerous it is to swim in the waters off the east coast. When, and analysis of shark bites over history indicated that there were actually fewer sharks bites that season than in the past.

That's why, or at least, they all lead with 'Well we all know how bad the economy is!' Unfortunately for the general public, they, the journalist, don't!

[ziggy29]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rustic23 To get an absolute accurate jobless number is most likely impossible, and unnecessary, as economist are looking at trends and attempting to compare current conditions to known previous conditions in order to formulate good public policy to facilitate change when necessary. So the go with the Labor Department's figures with all their warts.

I would be inclined to agree, with one caveat: When times are really good, the unemployment numbers aren't likely as understated as when times are tough. During boom times, chances are there aren't nearly as many as "uncounted" who are looking for work. Tough times force people who were voluntarily out of the work force to seek employment.

Not many retirees or stay-at-home spouses are going to start looking for a job in good times. We're a good example of that -- one of the main reasons my wife is looking for a job is because I don't want my paycheck and bennies to be a single point of failure, which in good times I don't worry about too much. We're doing very well as long as I hold on to my job -- but that's not a safe assumption in bad times.

And with that grain of salt, I'd agree with sticking with the official statistics to get a *relative* idea of the level of unemployment -- as long as we keep in mind that in a deep recession the "official" numbers are likely to be more undercounting of the percentage of people looking for work.

[Bestwifeever]

I'm agreeing with you, Rustic

But most people I know don't watch the news and many don't read a paper--they check the scores on line, they go to CNN or CNBC for stock prices or breaking news, but they don't watch the news/read the papers otherwise (I know this anecdotally because I'll bring up a secondary story from the paper's front page and they haven't seen it, or something I watched on the nightly news and they've not heard about it. And these are well-educated people otherwise). The google searches often turn up the exact same AP story posted on all the newspapers' websites.

So for traditional media to get people's attention for the non-breaking news stories, they give it the tough economic times spin. It seems to me, anyway.

[Rustic23]

BestWifeEver,
I guess the point in my rant, sorry folks, was that people don't think the press does not have or has very little effect on the economy. When at the heart of the Expectation theory is that if consumers expect good times, good times will come, and if they expect bad, bad times come. How anyone can ignore that a daily dose of:

It's bad
Worst economy since great depression
We all know how bad it is
Worst stock market since great depression
Worst housing market since Adam and Eve left the garden
Tax cuts won't pull us out of this because you have to have a job to enjoy them and people don't have jobs (personally one on my favorites)

is beyond me.

I admit that I see the economy through my eyes. I have not cut back on anything. I don't see that I will need to. I have two children. Neither of them has cut back. Neither are worried about loosing their jobs. None of my in-laws have cut back. None of the nieces or nephews have been fired. I live in a community of mostly retired folks, none seem worried. The one builder in the group, (not retired) has three homes going, and says he is good through next year. So I see the economy here, is not as bad as the press says. I realize this and I realize it colors my judgment of the economy. Therefore, as my anecdotal evidence does not support all this gloom and doom, I distrust the pronouncements of the national press, and really don't have a reliable opinion as to just how bad the economy is other than the data reported, and it just does not seem that bad.

[REWahoo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rustic23 BestWifeEver,

Off topic, but I could have sworn the correct pronunciation was BestWiFeever.

[ziggy29]

Quote:

Originally Posted by REWahoo Off topic, but I could have sworn the correct ponunciation was BestWiFeever.

Any relation to SaturdayNightFeever?

[REWahoo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ziggy29 Any relation to SaturdayNightFeever?

I'm not sure - but maybe the out of wedlock daughter love child of Dr. Johnny Feever?

[Bestwifeever]

Quote:

Originally Posted by REWahoo I'm not sure - but maybe the out of wedlock daughter love child of Dr. Johnny Feever?

My poor spelling parents named me after a video game system and Peggy Lee....

[Zathras]

I agree that the unemployment are not as useful as they could be. Especially when the method of computing them are changed.
However, 75% employment sounds pretty good, but what would that do to the economy?
Yes, the media tends to report 'shocking' news. It is how they get listeners/readers/watchers.
I again submit that this is a result of the failure of people not learning to think critically/logically. Once people learn that what they are being fed by most media is bunk, and stop watching/reading/listening, media will change.

[Midpack]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zathras Yes, the media tends to report 'shocking' news. It is how they get listeners/readers/watchers. I again submit that this is a result of the failure of people not learning to think critically/logically. Once people learn that what they are being fed by most media is bunk, and stop watching/reading/listening, media will change.

This is the essence of the discussion IMO. If you want to be a viable/successful media source, you have to sensationalize the stories to maximize viewers/ad revenues. If sensationalizing weren't effective, wouldn't The Newshour with Jim Lehrer or something similar be the most watched news broadcast? Yet, hardly anyone watches it. And if the mainstream population actually objected to sensationalism (instead of encouraging it), The Newshour would indeed be most watched news and that in turn would lead all the other news programs to be more objective and less sensational to follow the most successful model (The Newshour). But we continue to prefer, by our viewing choices, the sensationalized mainstream news or the polarized cable news - "we get what we deserve."

And the herd mentality comment is interesting. It's not just lazy journalists, it's lazy mainstream citizens that so readily go along with the crowd. Many hardly know the news at all, they know headlines, sound bytes - by design the most sensational elements just to get your attention. We don't like the herd mentality phenomena when things are bad, but we don't seem to mind when exactly the same thing happens on the way up. If the overblown economy of the past several years (that got us in our present mess) doesn't convince you of the irrational herd mentality of the mainstream population - nothing will. Again, ultimately "we get what we deserve." But instead of looking in the mirror and acting, we continue to place blame everywhere else and wonder why nothing changes...fascinating.

[ziggy29]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Midpack But we continue to prefer, by our viewing choices, the sensationalized mainstream news or the polarized cable news - "we get what we deserve."

The problem here is that even those who rarely (if ever) watch CNBC or the sensationalized we're-all-screwed 24/7 cable news media get hit by it. If a critical mass of media consumption junkies believe it and start to panic, selling all their stocks and stopping all but the most essential spending because of fear, it WILL ripple through to even those who aren't panicking at every fearmongering MSM report.

Do those people deserve what they get even if they don't consume the dumbed-down, sensationalized mainstream media Kool-Aid?

[Midpack]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ziggy29 Do those people deserve what they get even if they don't consume the dumbed-down, sensationalized mainstream media Kool-Aid?

I get your point and it's unfortunate. The saying could be "we all get what most of us deserve," but I guess it's partly to say the minority is accepting how the majority behaves so indeed "we get what we deserve."