The network news broadcasts are to blame for the American people's widely held misconception that the U.S. economy is in a recession, according to Media Research Center founder and President L. Brent Bozell III.
"How in the world is it that 81 percent of the American people believe that we're in a recession?" Bozell asked on CNBC's "Kudlow and Company" May 2. "Maybe it's because the national networks this year, and we've counted it, have talked about a recession over 500 times."
Bozell was referring to a poll reported by NBC which showed 81 percent of Americans believe the economy is in recession, in spite of the fact the financial system has not met the definition of a recession, which is two consecutive quarters of negative economic growth.
Figures released last week showed the gross domestic product (GDP) grew 0.6 percent in the first quarter of 2008, the same rate of growth seen in the last quarter of 2007. The growth is undeniably slow, but it is still positive. Unemployment also dropped from 5.1 percent in March 2008 to 5.0 percent in April.
"They were talking about this quarter going down. It went up," Bozell said. "And then there was all this murmuring about unemployment going up. It went down. No, good news is no news; bad news is great news."
Donald Luskin, the chief investment officer of Trend Macrolytics LLC and an advisor to the Business & Media Institute who also appeared on "Kudlow and Company," agreed.
"If it bleeds, it leads," Luskin said. "These people need negative stories. They need sex and violence and degradation and horror and catastrophe and when they can attach that to the economy, they do. It's just terribly sick, self-serving stuff."
Bozell reminded CNBC viewers that they should probably avoid taking economic tips from members of the media, who are better are writing a story than analyzing economic indicators. "What you've got here are people who went to [journalism] school," he said. "They're not economists."
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
I don't buy the "if it
May 5, 2008 - 09:55 ET by mattmI don't buy the "if it bleeds..." theory.
The networks don't "need" negative stories to get ratings. They would probably get better ratings with positive stories.
What they should do is report the facts and let the viewers decide what they want to think about it.
But they can't chance that and promote the Democrat Party at the same time, so....
It's the fault of socialist schools, not the media.
May 5, 2008 - 10:26 ET by sarcasmoOne entity holds itself out as responsible for teaching things and therefore needed, to the point that it's worth taxes. The other entity openly admits it picks stories based on what will sell the most, and doesn't force anyone to buy/watch anything. Guess which entity gets blamed for widespread economics ignorance?
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
Socialist school and the media
May 5, 2008 - 10:28 ET by DelsaMany factors and I added the media. Brent could not be MORE correct!
End of story.
slightly disagree
May 5, 2008 - 10:31 ET by candanceWe're not technically in a recession thanks to a half percent growth, but when you look at the cost of fuel, groceries, and power going up while the dollar drops more every day, I can understand why people think we are.
The MSM plays a role in consumer confidence but I don't think they control how much OPEC charges for oil. Some of these problems are for real.
If it bleeds
May 5, 2008 - 10:34 ET by Firmwormmattm...how can you not believe the 'if it bleeds' premise. I watch all the alphabet networks and as long as I can remember the first 27 minutes is blood, guts and commercials followed by a little puff piece and a cute smile from the desk anchor.
The game
May 5, 2008 - 10:41 ET by KC MulvilleMany of the talking heads on TV do carry expert credentials. Remember, though, that before you see them on screen, editors and reporters (who themselves know little about economics) put them on camera. How do reporters and editors decide who to interview? There are two possibilities:
I'm guessing, in the real world, #2 is much more likely. Or at least, it happens more often.
Whoops
May 5, 2008 - 11:52 ET by JoelCTHeh heh, I should have put down my coffee before I read your #2. Now I have to clean my screen.
That was funny, thanks.
2 quarters means no declaration of recession possible until...
May 5, 2008 - 11:01 ET by desertdweller... Around the presidential election.
IF next quarter's growth goes negative, which I doubt.
Then given the lag time in reporting economic indicators, the announcement of a recession would likely happen after the election, and the conspiracy mongers will go nuts.
D
May 5, 2008 - 11:05 ET by Noel SheppardD,
And, given how stocks have been trading, along with the dollar and the tightening of credit spreads, the markets are already discounting a recovery. As such, I agree that the second quarter now is looking OK, which means it's very unlikely we will officially be in recession on Election Day. ns
NS,
May 5, 2008 - 11:25 ET by AgnosticI disagree; I expect conservatives and Republicans the nation over to recess into a depression come election day. Of course this has nothing to do with economics which will have an amazing turnaround in the media following the new year. The depression should be short lived though since their is still an ideological war to be fought.
Well, perception is
May 5, 2008 - 12:13 ET by motherbeltWell, perception is everything. Who was the "journalist" who asked the President The American people believe we are in a recession. [I wonder why...] What will it take to make you say the words...
mb,
May 5, 2008 - 12:21 ET by AgnosticI was referring to the emotional depression of the election results as at best we get Pres. McCain and the Democrats in control of both houses. At worst, we end up with Pres. Obama and veto (not that they would need one) proof majority in both houses.
Noel and D..
May 5, 2008 - 13:06 ET by Gary HallKeeping the focus on media bias here, and reflecting back on the media's attention to the dying economy during the 2000 presidental race, one sees quite a contrast. The broad market (and profits) had hit it's peak in late 1997. In March of 2000, $8 +/- Trillion of equity to be lost from the dot.com bubble was underway. GDP and most economic indexes would be in free fall all year long. Rising gasoline and heating oil prices were causing pain. California was in the midst of it's energy crisis. The president's PDB had warned of an attack from Bin Laden.
As the election approached, not only was a recession almost a given, there was already talk in congress of a stimulous package, etc.
Clinton's favoribility ratings remained at record high levels, because the media only saw the economy in glowing terms and saw it all because of Clinton. The media gave Gore a free ride on the issue.
I'd actually be curious to know if any national mainstream journalist has ever come out and simply asked Bill Clinton a serious question about the recession that George Bush inherited. How about one like this?
economy coverage
May 5, 2008 - 13:17 ET by AgnosticIBD did a nice breakdown of the difference in coverage before and after election cycle between former President Bush vs. former President Clinton. Nearly all negative before Clinton and almost no news after the election. At least you have to give the media credit for being consistant even if they have become increasingly unhinged.
Agnostic.. IBD
May 5, 2008 - 14:10 ET by Gary HallIBD did a nice little series, Bush's Real Record on the Economy, just about a year ago. Naturally, the rest of the media wants nothing to do with such required reading.
Included in the series, was this keeper chart: Bush’s Big Chalenge: The Greatest Destruction of Wealth in U.S History,
(;~> Gary
People watch too much TV
May 5, 2008 - 11:14 ET by SGriffisThere's a reason the TV is called a "boob" tube, especially during the network news hour.
This is almost irrefutable proof that the media have an agenda.
May 5, 2008 - 11:53 ET by c5thenThe MSM are not reporting what is happening or what has happened, they are reporting what they want people to believe, in the hopes of making it so, and thereby affecting the outcome of the upcoming elections. For the last couple of years, they have come out of the closet and abandoned any vestige of fairness or eveness in their reporting in an attempt to get the Democrats into full and total control of the Federal Government.
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic. Let's get it back! Alan Keyes '08.
Things Are BAD
May 5, 2008 - 12:01 ET by JoelCTI love how when we get one of these stories about the MSM pushing how bad the economy is, the NB'ers talk about how great it is in their own areas. Like here in Central Texas, the malls are full, the roads are packed with cars and SUVs, there are almost as many buildings being built as there are buildings already built (you should see the construction in downtown Austin - it is amazing), the newspaper classifieds are full of help wanted ads, and I swear that 9 out of 10 cars I see are two years old or newer.
I am sure there are some people who have it rough, but there are always people going through change. I got laid off in 2001 and had a rough couple of months, but I didn't wait for the government to help me out, I got off my duff and got another job!
Brent Bozell for President! The REAL "truth to power"!
Here in western NC almost
May 5, 2008 - 12:04 ET by Clear thinkerHere in western NC almost every business in the area is hiring. In the MSM world I guess this is bad news.
"Abstain from McCain"
JoeCT
May 5, 2008 - 21:35 ET by desertdwellerI lived in Austin back in the early 90's when it came out of the S&L slump, and learned a lot about economic recovery watching that town grow.
With my significant other and I both laid off last month, we should be miserable, right?
Hardly. I'm buying a business and she's starting a new one. It is all about attitude.
News Without Perspective Isn't News
May 5, 2008 - 14:13 ET by Junk Science SkepticI personally believe that the Fed has successfully adjusted to correct for an overblown media-manufactured crisis about a miniscule problem in the sub-prime mortgage market.
Dollar futures have already turned the corner, most wholesale spending is still strong, coincident spikes in gas prices will taper as summer ends, and now that the real price of food-based ethanol is becoming clear, speculators will move on to the next fad and food prices should mediate.
If I had 20 pages in a financial section, or a half-hour broadcast, I could give you the context and perspective to understand why this is true, but I don't, so one can believe this or not.
Unfortunately, those folks who do have 20 pages and/or a half-hour, instead of using that opportunity to inform, prefer instead to use the opportunity to trot out poor unemployed Joe Schmoe from Outer Elbonia, South Dakota as their sole form of proof that we're all headed for the breadlines of the 1930's. No context about Joe never learning enough to stay current in his career, no perspective about the new factory in Inner Elbonia hiring hundreds, just poor old Joe and his miserable existance.
As somebody who lived through local unemployment rates of more than 25% during those great Carter years, I can't help but see unemployment rates of 5-6% as technically full employment.
Let's face it, some folks are going to be in between jobs on a planned or unplanned basis, some folks are intentionally taking time between jobs, and some folks are chronically, though not continually unemployed. At 5-6%, we're not just scraping the bottom of the barrel, but given somewhere between 8 and 15 million illegals working in the U.S., we're raiding the neighbor's barrel as well.
One reason that the tech boom pretty quickly plateaued was that even with offshoring and H1B visas, we still had to dip so far into the barrel (to 3.8% unemployment in April 2000), that the tech industry ran straight into a "competency wall" where they couldn't find enough people to even do things as simple as answer a phone and read from a screen.
Why does one think that apart from some minor discussion on the technical demerits of raising the minimum wage, that the recent hike went off without any major complaint from industry?
Because at sub 5% unemployment rates, the "real" minimum wage for a marginally-employable entry level worker was already well above the "regulated" minimum wage. Raising the regulated minimum was nothing more than political onanism.
In my moderate-cost city, employers have to pay $8/hour to get highschool kids to serve fast food. At that rate, what's the point of a $5.85 minimum wage?
Granted, the reporting on the economy would have an entirely different tone if the sitting president had a "D" after his name, but even when that's the case, reports on the economy, whether true or false, never provide sufficient perspective to really inform the audience.
ABC 2008 (Anybody But Clinton)