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

[liveitup]

I'm driving down the road and the news comes on the radio "HOME PRICES WERE DOWN 9% IN NOVEMBER"!
I would say the average person would interpret that as meaning home prices fell 9% in 1 month.What they failed to mention was that it was a comparison to November of 2007.

So many people are influenced by what they hear on the news.With such a negative,slanted view,how can we expect to recover and this economy back on track?

[ziggy29]

I think it contributes, but a lot of things are contributing as well. Compared to (say) the 1973-74 market, I see a few differences that could increase volatility and panic:

* 24/7 cable news reminding us how terrible things are;

* More potentially toxic and flammable financial instruments (derivatives, CDOs, MBSes and other alphabet soup securities);

* More willingness to lend recklessly;

* Ease of active online trading for the masses;

* Availability of concentrated exchange-traded bets on indices, sectors and commodities may increase volatility and encourage more momentum players;

* Increased individual reliance on the stock market for retirement in the 401K era.

I think all of these add to volatility, fear, greed and instability in the markets. But I don't know that for the most part there's a heck of a lot we can do about it other than regulate/ban some types of speculative instruments that don't do much of anything positive for typical investors in the long run.

[ls99]

The only reporting by news media i find useful is the first one or two paragraph of any article. If i'm still interested then i check out the story on the web. Looking at a known liberal and then a conservative media source. Between the two slants there usually is some merit to the story.

Having known first hand the facts of events then reading about them in the papers, i usually was astonished that i was reading about the event i was involved in.

Sadly the first victims of news articles are the facts.

[Frugality_of_Apathy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ls99 Looking at a known liberal and then a conservative media source. Between the two slants there usually is some merit to the story.

So somewhere between the Illuminati manipulating the stock market and rich white men crashing the market to keep poor black single mothers in the gutter lies the truth?

There are always more than two perspectives on an issue and just because two are diametrically opposed doesn't mean they are an equal distance from the truth.

[LOL!]

I only scanned this thread quickly, but noticed a few things to comment on:

1. Who cares what the news media does? If they report thing inaccurately or confusingly, so what? That often leads to opportunity for folks who know better.

2. There is an old rule (Patterson's Law?) that "The closer you are to a news event the more unbelievable the reporting is; while the further you are from a news event, the more believable the reporting is."

I have seen first hand how reporters get the facts completely wrong. That's why there is no reason to listen to or read any "breaking news" because the news that gets reported first is not always factual.

3. I didn't know 70% of the population had a college degree. That statistic is simply amazing consider the percentage of the population that is under 18 and also the percentage of folks who never graduate from high school. Someone is playing lose with numbers here.

Anyways, the news is sometimes fun to read for all the things they get wrong. Teach your kids that just because it's in the newspaper or online doesn't mean it's correct.

[Frugality_of_Apathy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by LOL! 3. I didn't know 70% of the population had a college degree. That statistic is simply amazing consider the percentage of the population that is under 18 and also the percentage of folks who never graduate from high school. Someone is playing lose with numbers here.

I think maybe they inverted that number since this story says only 29% of Americans have a college degree.

[barbarus]

The now moribund MainStream Media is a BIG part of our current problems. By refusing to report on the ridiculous runup in housing prices, by acting as mouthpieces for the NAR, by ignoring corruption in the financial and political spectrum, they were major enablers of our economic downfall.

But then again, so are many on this blog, who even at this late date insist we are only in a minor downturn. Whistling in the dark. Still hoping againgst hope. Still kidding themselves.

Explain to me how many houses could increase in price 500% in five years? Outside of a few rare exceptions, this is impossible, unless the value of the dollar dropped to a fifth of it's value over that time.

If you want to look for bad guys, look at your owm politician, look at your government, look at the banks, look at the real estate industry, llok at financeres, look at you family look at your neighbors. Then go look in the mirror.

Greed is only going to be rewarded at the highest levels. At the other end of the spectrum, you and I, dear friends, and your kids, are going to be paying the price.

For a long, L O N G, time.

[ls99]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frugality_of_Apathy So somewhere between the Illuminati manipulating the stock market and rich white men crashing the market to keep poor black single mothers in the gutter lies the truth? There are always more than two perspectives on an issue and just because two are diametrically opposed doesn't mean they are an equal distance from the truth.

I think you missed two words; ...."some merit" to the story
Truth is always elusive.

[CuppaJoe]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ls99 The only reporting by news media i find useful is the first one or two paragraph of any article. If i'm still interested then i check out the story on the web ....

I'm glad to hear that because traditionally a good news story is designed to give all main info in the first and second paragraphs, the reader could stop anywhere and have enough of the story. Dad was a journalist who could put the whole story in a photo caption.

I don't remember the facts being obscured the way they are now; example: the story we discussed on a recent thread about the family of seven living on $44,000/yr.; the $44,000 was their average income over 26 years. In the '60s and '70s I read "Time" magazine cover to cover, now it goes straight to recycling and I won't renew it.

To Ziggy29's list of how today differs from the early '70s, I'd add that investing in those days was so unpopular with the masses that I kept my mutual funds a secret from my family and friends. Now people I don't know well ask. It wasn't a coffee shop topic then. Mini skirts were in and polyester leisure suits.

Also, I believe most mutual funds had sales commissions, anyone know for sure about that? How far back does "no load" go, what percentage of funds were no load in the early '70s?

[FinanceDude]

Quote:

Originally Posted by CuppaJoe Also, I believe most mutual funds had sales commissions, anyone know for sure about that? How far back does "no load" go, what percentage of funds were no load in the early '70s?

Loads were 8.5% "back in the day". No-loads didn't become mainstream until deregulation and Bogle in the mid 1970's.........

One "old guy" I know said that front loads were as high as 10% "way back in the day", like the early 60's..........

[CuppaJoe]

Quote:

Originally Posted by FinanceDude Loads were 8.5% "back in the day". No-loads didn't become mainstream until deregulation and Bogle in the mid 1970's......... One "old guy" I know said that front loads were as high as 10% "way back in the day", like the early 60's..........

Thanks, FiDude, now I don't feel like such an idiot for buying a 5% load in '72.

[jazz4cash]

Quote:

Originally Posted by FinanceDude Loads were 8.5% "back in the day". No-loads didn't become mainstream until deregulation and Bogle in the mid 1970's......... One "old guy" I know said that front loads were as high as 10% "way back in the day", like the early 60's..........

I recall loads more like 5% overall in the early 80's. The one outfit charging 8.5% that I distictly recall was an outlier...the name escapes me, but you will remember thier slogan "buy term and invest the difference".

[. . . Yrs to Go]

Quote:

Originally Posted by liveitup So many people are influenced by what they hear on the news.With such a negative,slanted view,how can we expect to recover and this economy back on track?

I can see both sides of the argument as equally valid. While it's undoubtedly true that the relentless bad news broadcast nightly hurts confidence and contributes to any economic malaise. But at the same time, people are served by hearing about bad economic times so they can change their behavior to protect themselves.

[thefinancebuff]

It's a part of the problem, but I don't think it's a BIG part of the problem.

[Rustic23]

It is part of the problem and a BIG part of the problem.

Consumers make up a large percentage of the economy. About 70% of the population do not have a college degree, and I would guess considerable fewer have any sort of economic background. Bad news consistently in the press and TV has an effect. I think economist refer to it as the Expectation Theory. i.e. you expect a bad economy because everything you have been told says it is bad, so it gets bad.

[FinanceDude]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rustic23 It is part of the problem and a BIG part of the problem. Consumers make up a large percentage of the economy. About 70% of the population has a college degree, and I would guess considerable fewer have any sort of economic background. Bad news consistently in the press and TV has an effect. I think economist refer to it as the Expectation Theory. i.e. you expect a bad economy because everything you have been told says it is bad, so it gets bad.

What's the old journalism saying? "Bad news SELLS, good news SMELLS"??

[lazygood4nothinbum]

it is all the internet's fault.

comrades, quickly, we must stop the free flow of information.

shhhhh. nobody should know.

[Rustic23]

My bad. It was suppose to be 70% do not have. That was based on an article that compared the Russia and the U.S. In Russia about 20% of their 'high schooler' go to college, where 80% in the U.S. However, the graduation rate in Russia is considerably higher and therefore both countries have about 20% college graduates. I used the 70% because the article was about 15 years old. The point being that a large portion of the population are not 'economic literate', and may be more likely to react to scare tatics of the press.

[CuppaJoe]

The college I went to had a tradition of filling the largest lecture hall on campus with freshmen, in groups until they got them all. The orientation included the famous first words we all waited for, "look to the person on your right, look to the person on your left, two of you will not graduate in four years." The year after I graduated (in five-1/2 years after dropping out a couple of times to work my way thru) the beautiful old building containing that lecture hall went up in spectacular flames. Hope the other tradition survives.

[JOHNNIE36]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rustic23 My bad. It was suppose to be 70% do not have. That was based on an article that compared the Russia and the U.S. In Russia about 20% of their 'high schooler' go to college, where 80% in the U.S. However, the graduation rate in Russia is considerably higher and therefore both countries have about 20% college graduates. I used the 70% because the article was about 15 years old. The point being that a large portion of the population are not 'economic literate', and may be more likely to react to scare tatics of the press.

There's another statistic I can't believe. Are you saying that 80% of our "high schoolers", probably meaning graduates, go on to college? Can't believe that number. I don't know what it is but I'll bet it's less than 50%. Maybe more like a third. Anyone out there know?