BADMOUTHING THE ECONOMY
By Betsy Newmark
August 20, 2005 09:22 AM
(Betsy Newmark of Betsy's Page)
The Wall Street Journal is taking a look on how the media portrays the economy.
The paradox of the year is why so many Americans tell
pollsters they feel bad about an economy that's been so
good, with solid job growth and corporate profits, rising
wages and home prices, and a huge decline in the budget
deficit. Perhaps one reason is because the media keep
saying the economy stinks.
That's the conclusion of a study to be released today by
the Media Research Center, which finds that so far this
year 62% of the news stories on the Big Three TV networks
have portrayed the U.S. economy in negative fashion.
The "negative full length TV news stories on the economy
outnumbered positive stories by an overwhelming ratio of
4 to 1," the MRC reports
The Media Research Center conducted this study and concludes:
The federal deficit is shrinking, unemployment has
fallen, and America has seen more than two straight years
of job growth. But broadcasters have been describing the
economy as “dicey,” “volatile” and “slow.” A Free Market
Project analysis of economic stories on network evening
news shows since President George W. Bush’s second
inauguration showed negative news prevailing 62 percent
of the time (71 out of 115 stories). That number was
deceiving, however, because even good news often was
portrayed as bad. In 40 stories classified as good
economic news, journalists undermined the good news with
bad 45 percent of the time.
Good news was relegated to short reports, or briefs, 68
percent of the time, while bad news was treated with full
stories. When briefs on both sides were excluded, the
comparison of full-length news stories showed an
overwhelming ratio: negative stories outnumbered positive
ones almost 4-to-1.
Kevin Hassett and John Lott did a similar study last year to contrast how the media presented the economy when there is a Democratic and a Republican president in office.
When GDP growth is reported, Republicans received between
16 and 24 percentage point fewer positive stories for the
same economic numbers than Democrats. For durable goods
for all newspapers, Republicans received between 15 and
25 percentage points fewer positive news stories than
Democrats. For unemployment, the difference was between
zero and 21 percentage points. Retail sales showed no
difference. Among the Associated Press and the top 10
papers, the Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, Associated
Press, and New York Times tend to be the least likely to
report positive news during Republican administrations,
while the Houston Chronicle slightly favors Republicans.
Only one newspaper treated one Republican administration
significantly more positively than the Clinton
administration: the Los Angeles Times' headlines were
most favorable to the Reagan administration, but it still
favored Clinton over either Bush administration.
Is anyone surprised by all these results? I think these findings are too large to be due to mere happenstance. I'm not saying that the reporters get together and say, "Hey, a Bush is president; let's convince everyone that the economy is doing terribly." But that is the template through which they view the news. They don't look at economic results as a point on a graph but as part of an overall story about where the economy is headed. And they have made up their minds that policies such as tax cuts will trash the economy. So, they're ready with the gloom and doom.
As the WSJ writes:
Media coverage of President Bush's tax cuts has been
particularly slanted. During the 2003 tax-cut debate,
three of every four major TV network news stories were
negative. The favorite criticisms were liberal echoes
that it would bust the budget and favor the rich. Earlier
this year, a news story on National Public Radio
announced that "as everyone knows, the primary cause of
the budget deficit was the Bush tax cuts." No word yet on
whom NPR is crediting with this year's revenue surge of
$262 billion. Robert Rubin?
NPR doesn't need to give anyone credit. They'll just downplay the story or not even report it. It will be a brief blurb in the roundup of headlines and they'll resist the opportunity to explain how the tax cuts have helped create a increase in revenue. That will fit their pattern of talking about the shaky, greedy economy of the Reagan economy, the sinking economy of the G.H.W. Bush years, the thriving economy of the Clinton years, and the fragile economy of the G.W. Bush years.
The Anchoress remembers how Bush was criticized in the 2000 election for "talking down the economy."
theanchoressonline.com
michellemalkin.com
online.wsj.com
freemarketproject.org
papers.ssrn.com
