Does the media’s approach to news about the economy make the economy worse?

Many media outlets have decided to abandon reporting the news and take an active role in making news themselves, acting as mouthpieces for one side or the other. Therefore, yes, a number of media outlets have had a role in making the economy worse.

“Many media outlets have decided to abandon reporting the news and take an active role in making news themselves, acting as mouthpieces for one side or the other.”

We could use more of that. But as I see it, the problem is that much of the media isn’t biased enough. They do safe reporting, merely repeating what each side says, acting in effect, as mouthpieces for both sides, not adding to the understanding of either.

And of course, there is the dreadful bias toward balance, the “Hitler was a bad guy, but he built some great roads” style of journalism, that makes the lives of reporters easier, but fails to convey much of the truth of any given story.

I believe that the sensationalism of current “journalism” is hurting the economy as well as an ongoing nation centric viewpoint Americans have. The downgrade of the U.S. government is only one piece of the current slide in the markets with the debt problems of Spain and Italy, as well as the riots in London playing bigger roles. People have actually been buying U.S.A. bonds (“downgraded’U.S. debt) as a safe haven from the volatile and often irrational markets. But with that said I think that the reporting about the downgrade has in a way has been under reported that it was actually the political theater of the far right that was the trigger of the downgrade.

It isn’t the whole fault of the “media” per-say, though the 24 hour news cycle with everything repeated over and over can’t help. It is that the average Jane Six-pack goes crazy because she hears bad news all the time. One of my favorite stats (to the best of my memory) is that because parents hear about child abduction all the time on the TV, they never let their kids outside, especially unmediated, but your kid has a greater chance of being eaten by a shark while being hit by a bolt of lightning than being abducted and even those that do, 90% of those are abducted by a family member … and this is just one example.

I think the media is all about fear, It is fear of change, fear of the unknown and fear of anything that drives us to watch. We purchase out of fear and we are slaves to the fear that the news generates. News outlets generally feed the fear to build their ratings and ad revenues. We have to break the cycle of fear and half truths that we are being fed so we can move on.

Absolutely there’s a connection between what we hear and see in the media and how we feel and, in turn, act. We live in the stories we tell ourselves, especially the ones we tell over and over. When pessimistic stories of economic failings and falterings headline news day after day, hour after hour, we live in that story. It seems to be true — there is much to worry about and fear. But the trouble is, even if a story was true yesterday or is true even today, tomorrow can’t be any different if we continue to live inside of old stories.

One of the challenges moving forward will be how to properly digest all of the stories around us. With news popping up on Twitter, Facebook, and blogs — in addition to T.V., radio, and newspapers, it’s possible to read a hundred different sides to a given story. Is that useful? With a story like the recent (and arguably excessive) debates in Congress over the national debt, the constant media coverage seemed only to fan the flames of the political arguments. Is primetime television coverage really necessary

Of course, an engaged public is the foundation of a working democracy. But engaged how? Most stories only engage our reactive emotions, like fear and anger. When every story is “crisis” or “breaking news,” it plays to an emotional response, not a thoughtful, critical response. Even the writing in many newspaper articles takes on T.V. news’ inflammatory style, where you can practically hear the fire alarm or tornado siren wailing in the background. If all a news story is designed to do is tap into our reactive emotions, we can’t expect a healthy or productive public response. Whether or not we like it, bad news sells. And since that’s not likely to change, we have to decide not to buy into it.

In our national and public sphere, the life we all share, it’s unfortunate that we can’t always choose the stories told about us. Oftentimes, I hear T.V. news anchors quoting nationwide polls as if a phone screen of 2500 Americans factually certifies that we are all worried about such-and-such. Sure, that information might sound interesting, but is it helpful? More than whether or not the media coverage is itself good or bad, or on one of many sides, we need to decide whether or not it’s helpful. More precisely, we need to decide how much coverage is helpful, if we truly want to mature and grow from yesterday’s stories into the untold stories of today. We can’t keep telling yesterday’s news if we truly want to move forward.

Yes.

Remember that media people specialize in “media” and are not subject matter experts. They don’t know what questions to ask and they don’t know how to listen, interpret or react to the response given. They need to focus on their next question and keepint the show interesting and moving with lots of drama.

I’d go so far as to say that even the “univeristy” or others whio the media are able to book as guests or sources, also have their own agenda (i.e., selling books, promoting the school) and they are also not subject matter experts.

If the public only get their news or updates from media personnel (or on air personalities) they are not informed.

For sure. Most of the commercial/cable media is biased toward the right and wants to do everything it can to assist the republicans and right-wing to discredit anything the current administration tries to do to improve the economy. For that matter, the media is expert at reporting doom and gloom rather than report what good is happening most of the time. They may squeeze in a little human interest piece now and then but it’s too little, too late. I pretty much have stopped watching news programs on television, do not subscribe to cable other than the local broadcast channels. Funny isn’t it, that the airwaves are owned by the public, but are controlled by these crooks and charlatans. Evidently they can make more money for themselves by reporting bad news rather than anything positive.

The excessive negativity is a mutual effort.

1. The media gets more audience by sensationalizing the news.

2. The current opposition party natters on about how bad things are in order to discredit incumbents.

3. We, the people, are biased in our skepticism. We react with suspicion to good news and get worked up about the latest conspiracy theory, while treating yesterday’s conspiracy theory as established truth.

Here’s the remedy: Instead of worrying about how “the Economy” is doing, ask yourself how you, and people you know are doing.

Perhaps the most intellectually responsible reply would be: “WELL, DUH!”

Yes- the media should be objectively reporting the news and examining and analyzing the “spin”. Rather, the constant drumbeat and minute to minute reporting of the markets yesterday were not helpful- even MPR and NPR had nonstop reporting of the falls in the market beginning at 9am. We need some balanced reporting !!

The Fourth Estate has done a terrible job covering the economic catastrophe and congress’s dealings with the issue. Maybe it is too complicated for lazy reporters to understand or for lazy consumers with short attention spans to understand.

At any rate, follow the money–for-profit media and their corporate owners are more likely to make a profit if people are kept in the dark with 24-hour coverage of celebrity weddings and stories about moms killing their kids.

The media’s current reporting tactics makes “any situation worse”. Look no further than Newsweek’s cover this week. There is no better example of media’s use of sensational headlines and unflattering pictures in an attempt to bias reader opinion. How can anyone, regardless of how you feel about Representative Bachman, consider this magazine as a reliable news source? Oh yea, Tina Brown has done this before, Princess Diana vs. Kate Middleton.

The media will exaggerant the negative aspect of every story on the economy. We’re supposed to be afraid. It makes us easier to control. Fear stops critical thinking and throws us into a primal flight or fight response. So the media sells more negative stories, and we are easier to mold into a herd mentality.

@bear.

Well I just actually READ the article, and it seems pretty accurate to me.

How do you KNOW the photo was Photoshopped? Are you an expert? She posed for that picture, that stupid look on her face is all her own. No amount of Photoshopping could do that.

And please don’t through faux news’s slogan around, it makes you lose all credibility too.

#Bachmann.

Given the her legendary and continuing mis-quotes, mis-statements, mala-props and utter disdain for clear logic that she has foisted on the American public through media over the last decade – this is just simple serendipitous statistical chance taking place. Frankly I hope there is more. We need more “buffooning” of those who would be kings!

No. Most news outlets have a target audience, and design their coverage to serve its demands. Many of these target audiences demand news that agrees with a position they already hold. Their economic behavior is determined long before selecting their news source.

The only target audience likely to change behavior based on reporting is one that has real money at risk. These people demand accuracy in the interest of not losing money, regardless of their personal political outlook. They make decisions based on information from a proven source, and if that source fails them, they abandon it; hence the source must be accurate or lose its market.

So, no, the media do not make the economy worse, since the only news sources within the media that shape capital allocation have a survival motive to be accurate. The rest speak to people who weild little capital and have already made up their minds.

I trust MPR to air all the NPR stories for their honest accounts of nothing more than, who said what..all second hand commentary without much facts noted. They do this for the economy for the past three years and the public was largely unaware of the serious debt we are all in. heck_ they discuss the recall vote in WI yet fail to even cover the story of racial mob violence at their State Fair of black youth mugging whites…. That story should have been aired and should have led to the question for discussion as, ” Has Obama’s constant rhetoric about blaming the rich whites for all the economic problems leading to even more racial unrest in the USA?

America has not seen such anti-white atmosphere being encouraged excepting Iran’s President as the lead gun there. Media influences more by what they refuse to air.

Steve the Cynic, judging by his time of posts, lives in his bathrobe and bloggs to counter anything anti-Obama..great work if you can get Steve 🙂

In Obama’s own words in his book, “My grandmother was a TYPICAL WHITE PERSON.” Obama stated to the press during a June or May staffing that he thinks some_ of the opposition to his policies from Congress is because race plays a part.”

And Obama is oddly quiet about the recent black young adults attacking whites on the street for fun..Hmmm……because who is it now that feels entitled to act without repercussions?

The media has sometimes referred to itself as “the fourth wing of government” with hopes of convincing the public of its positive “watchdog” attributes. As it obsessively patrols the henhouse the financial foxes are devouring its owner, the public. But then who owns the tired eyed well fed watchdog? The Fox.