The news media have covered recent economic trials with four times as much negativity as they covered the worst economic period in the nation's history - the Great Depression - a new study from the Business & Media Institute shows.
"They were four times more negative during the Bear Stearns buyout than the worst economic couple days in our country's history," BMI Vice President Dan Gainor said on "Fox & Friends" May 27, announcing the release of the new study, "The Great Media Depression."
"Forget what Alan Greenspan said yesterday about recession," Gainor said. "A lot of the people in the media have hurdled that and gone straight to talk about depression, more than 40 times this year already."
During the week of the 1929 stock market crash, daily news stories reported positive news more often than negative news by a 4-to-1 ratio, the study found. That's a stark contrast from current economic sluggishness, which has seen very little positive commentary on the direction of financial markets.
Gainor also highlighted the media's tendency to change the definition of a recession to suit their agenda. "[A]ll three of the major networks use that comparison, that sort of technical definition of a recession," he said, referring to the definition of recession as two quarters of negative economic growth. "But then when they don't get the result, they sort of change it. It's a moving target."
"Fox & Friends" co-host Brian Kilmeade asked Gainor about "the impact on the economy if all the news hitting the consumer is negative."
"The economic impact both Neil Cavuto here and Maria Bartiromo on CNBC have warned [is] that we're kind of talking ourselves into a recession," Gainor said. "The political impact of that is this is the No. 1 issue for Americans and we're in danger of going back to 1992, when the media didn't tell us the economy had rebounded and that had a huge impact on the election."
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
It's Really Bad... To Them
May 27, 2008 - 11:04 ET by JoelCTI noticed on cnn.com, on the business page just now, this headline: "Consumer confidence: Worst since '92" - how very interesting. So the Consumer Confidence is the worst since the last time the media was trashing the economy in order to get their man elected President.
I sit here and marvel at how obvious the connection is between the two. The difference this time is the MSM know that we know it, and they just don't care that we know they are trying to change the outcome of the Presidential election. In '92, they thought they were being sneaky and no one noticed.
Your right, their leftist
May 27, 2008 - 11:29 ET by general companyYour right, their leftist agenda is fairly obvious to those of us that look for it. Unfortunately, their are many with out the means or simply still believe the MSM is truthful and unbiased. We need more honest folks in the media, it would help bring more honesty to DC and local Gov. The thing I really don't understand is why the news outlets would want Dems in office, when businesses are not doing well, (and they don't under their policies), wont they suffer to?
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
The Day After Barack is Elected ...
May 27, 2008 - 11:49 ET by allanfDon't worry guys. The economy will miraculously improve the day after Barack Hussein Obama (is usuing his middle name a slight?) is elected the 44th President of the United States of America. An never before seen shower of hope and optimism will suddenly cover this great land. Our brave men and women of the press will be out the next day, risking life and limb in some of America's most devastated areas to channel this new found econmic hope.
Be forewarned, if John (Keating 5, Republican) McCain wins the economy will still be in dire straights.
Once upon a time, even
May 27, 2008 - 11:35 ET by mattmOnce upon a time, even journalists believed in America.
Well of COURSE they're
May 27, 2008 - 11:57 ET by chiefpayneWell, of COURSE they're more negative! During the Great Depression, the news services wanted to MINIMIZE the Depression during those days (and it was caused by a lack of confidence in the government)
The news services of today WANT to create ANOTHER Great Depression...because as we all know, that was the start of the Democrats taking control of the government.
This really isn't so hard to figure out!
Newsbunglers...
May 27, 2008 - 13:05 ET by jabelsonYou act as if the media is just making this all up - all the while Warren Buffett tells us that this crunch is EVEN worse than we're reading in the newspapers (is HE a left stooge?). Does the media quote economic experts to back up their stories? "Billionaire investor George Soros said the financial crisis is the worst since the Great Depression and the markets will fall once more this year after a brief rebound, it was reported today. "
You want to blame the MSM for $130 a barrel oil?
For the huge slide in home prices?
For the huge uptick in the price of food?
Or do you want to blame the media for telling the truth - because you don't deny their claims - you only seem to wish they'd shut up...
Quick, somebody close the back door! A Kosbot has snuck in!
May 27, 2008 - 13:09 ET by R D HelmWe are being smothered by government in this country. - Neal Boortz
You want to blame the
May 27, 2008 - 13:16 ET by Jack BauerI'd start by blaming the US Congress, hotshot.
For the past 30 years they've bent over and told the enviromental cases to ram the U.S. citizen as hard as possible.
No nuclear power. No drilling. No refineries. No wonder Americans are going to get screwed over energy for the forseeable future.
Remember that next time you vote.
I'd agree
May 27, 2008 - 14:05 ET by jabelsonSo if you blame the congress and NOT the media (and let's not forget that Republicans have held the congress for the majority of the last 15 years) then you blame the right for the jam we face...
jabelson, Your buddies the democrats, held it from 2006
May 27, 2008 - 14:26 ET by upcountrywaterNow chart the INCREASE in gas prices in those last 2 years...$2.50 THEN... $4.50 now... VOTING FOR NO DRILLING AGAIN!!
$6.99 end of next year, thanks for your vote.
Liberals62%
IranianUranium
So jabelson, are part of
May 27, 2008 - 14:32 ET by general companySo jabelson, are you part of the 38% ?
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
It's hardly my fault if you
May 27, 2008 - 14:43 ET by Jack BauerIt's hardly my fault if you cannot understand the words "Congress for the past THIRTY years."
You seem to be working under the delusion there's has been a difference between Democrats in the pocket of the enviromental cases; and the cringing Republicans who have gone along with the idiocy.
GREEN... IT'S THE NEW RED. Get used to huge prices in gas.
Yes Warren Buffett and George Soros are left wing stooges
May 27, 2008 - 13:11 ET by Dee BunkThe fact that you don't know that is amusing. Most super rich elitists are left wing stooges. Wake up.
The Super Rich
May 27, 2008 - 13:58 ET by jabelson"The fact that you don't know that is amusing. Most super rich elitists are left wing stooges. Wake up."
It's true - the ultra rich have a LONG history of communism and collectivism - it's in their blood to throw away the family fortune!
Where do they find people like you?
Jabelson - you are a fool - the Rich do have a long history of
May 27, 2008 - 14:07 ET by Dee Bunksupporting socialism and communism. Do you know any history?
Wow how brainwashed can someone be? Jabelson shows how easy it is.
and 're an idiot...
May 27, 2008 - 14:07 ET by jabelsonthe rich support communism? Name a few of those ultra rich communists. If you want to say that the rich support social programs - then I'd agree, but the idea that the rich want to share THEIR money is as stupid as it is wrong...
only a true idiot could contradict himself so clearly in such
May 27, 2008 - 14:19 ET by Dee Bunka short statement. These rich who support social programs don't want to share their money? What a buffoon. You talk complete nonsense.
Everyone knows that Buffet and Soros are left wing. They don't even deny it. Soros has funded left wing groups. Then their are all the rich Hollywood stars that Rock stars who wear Che Quevera T-shirts and praise Communists and socialists like Castro and Chavez.
Once people have reached an elite status they don't need Capitalism anymore. It's people who haven't got their yet who need it to get there.
Rich Hollywood stars might
May 27, 2008 - 14:46 ET by balboaRich Hollywood stars might wear Che Guevara T-shirts, but they're not about to live in a commune or collective (OK, except for Woody Harrelson...as long as there's pot around).
exactly balboa - They know that they will always get
May 27, 2008 - 14:52 ET by Dee Bunkspecial treatment. Just like they do when they visit Cuba, Venezuela and Iraq (under Hussein). It's the rest of us who they want to live like that.
"You want to blame the MSM
May 27, 2008 - 13:16 ET by NL207"You want to blame the MSM for $130 a barrel oil"
No, I want to blame silly-assed Democrat policies by the Government for this. Pharmaceuticals and energy are the two most regulated industries in America and they are also the two most messed up.
"For the huge uptick in the price of food? "
No. I blame Al Gore and the Democrats+RINOs for this. In '94 that myopic jackass cast the deciding vote to federally mandate the use of ethanol in motor fuel, despite the fact it is neither cost effective nor ecologically sound. The continued push for biofuel is directly behind sharply rising food prices. Nobody would be using this crap if it were not being subsidized and mandated by the national government.
"you don't deny their claims - you only seem to wish they'd shut up... "
I deny their claims. Why don't you shut up before everyone realizes how ignorant you are.
You want to Blame the MSM
May 27, 2008 - 13:55 ET by jabelson" No, I want to blame silly-assed Democrat policies by the Government for this. Pharmaceuticals and energy are the two most regulated industries in America and they are also the two most messed up. "
Sure - the republicans - until 2006, held the Congress for 12 years - and the White House - which they still hold - since 2000. So either the Republicans are in league with the democrats - or you're just plain wrong - I'd bet on wrong...
"No. I blame Al Gore and the Democrats+RINOs for this. In '94 that myopic jackass cast the deciding vote to federally mandate the use of ethanol in motor fuel, despite the fact it is neither cost effective nor ecologically sound. The continued push for biofuel is directly behind sharply rising food prices. Nobody would be using this crap if it were not being subsidized and mandated by the national government. "
So you're going back 14 years to blame for high prices today! And You're blaming a Democrat for casting the deciding vote in the congress run by Newt and his thugs.
If it helps you sleep at night...
Exactly who opposes oil
May 27, 2008 - 15:08 ET by NL207Exactly who opposes oil exploration and production?
Drilling in ANWR is supported by President Bush, the Alaskans and conservative Republicans. It is opposed by Democrats and Greens with a few RINO's.
Drilling in the Gulf is the subject of s.3711 and is supported by Conservative Republicans and opposed by liberal Democrats. Even the RINOs and many Dems did not oppose this.
Drilling off the California coast is supported by Conservatives but opposed by RINOs, Liberals and Democrats.
"So you're going back 14 years to blame for high prices today! And You're blaming a Democrat for casting the deciding vote in the congress run by Newt and his thugs."
Pull your pants up. Your ignorance is showing again. In 1994, the Congress was controlled by Democrats. The Speaker of the House was Tom Foley, (D-Washington), NOT Newt Gingrich.
When we are talking about energy production systems, 10-20 years is about the lead time necessary to see the full effect of a decision. It takes 4 - 15 years to build a power plant depending on the type. Fuel systems and their supply trains have similar lead times.
You lose. Thank you for playing. And do return again.
Apples + Oranges = Another Dud.
May 27, 2008 - 13:25 ET by sarcasmoCiting talking heads like Neil Cavuto & Maria Bartiromo in a comparison to overly-positive news coverage from an era when radio -- let alone TV -- barely even existed isn't exactly convincing stuff. It's almost like comparing a relatively free & unregulated market under the last vestiges of something resembling a Constitutional monetary system & suffering from the early stages of central bank inflation to much less free markets amid much more regulation and in an era of that same central bank literally spewing paper "money." Yep, it's another NB dud.
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
Apple and apples
May 27, 2008 - 17:49 ET by nkviking75Sarcasmo, there was an abundance of national media in that era. NBC and CBS were national radio networks at the time, and AP and UPI were feeding newspapers all over the country. Granted, it was nothing like today, but it was there. You make it sound as though people got their news by the Pony Express.
Today's media clearly has an agenda in their coverage. Most notable was their refusal to accept that we don't have a recession yet, no matter how many times the definition was explained to them. It was the same in 1992 when candidate Bill Clinton was allowed by the MSM to get away with the bald face lie that the economy then was the worst in 50 years. (It wasn't even close.)
Note that Cavuto and Bartiromo are cited as exceptions to the MSM trend, not examples of it.
When you put the clowns in charge, don't be surprised when a circus breaks out.
Not pony express
May 28, 2008 - 05:35 ET by sarcasmoBut not radio, either, unless they had money. Most people probably got their (minimal) news from newspapers or word of mouth from friends, so talking heads on TVs are irrelevant. And considering the blatant socialist dishonesty of the taxpayer bailout of Bear Stearns, I don't think the media is all that wrong to say "things are bad."
Things are bad, and Bush's irresponsible banker socialism has given Obama the excuse, as I predicted, to promise future irresponsible homeowner socialism. That's not the fault of the MSM, it's the fault of George W. Bush, so I still call this one a dud. NB has the occasional dud, and this is another one. If anything, the real bias comes from nobody being honest enough to call socialism "socialism."
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.