Don’t miss Brendan Nyhan’s excellent review of coverage of the unemployment-numbers conspiracy theory kicked off by Jack Welch on Friday.
And I’ve got two more examples of poor press coverage to point out on this issue. The Los Angeles Times gave the nutty, evidence-free assertion the he said/she said treatment on the front of the business pages. Here’s the lede:
The unusually steep drop in the U.S. jobless rate just weeks before the presidential election has sparked howls of protest from some conservatives that the White House cooked the books to boost President Obama’s chances.
At least the Times calls it a “conspiracy theory” a few paragraphs down, but it shouldn’t have allowed lunatics to hijack the frame in the first place.
On CNBC, unsurprisingly, the reporters were doing the framing, too. Carl Quintanilla had Labor Secretary Hilda Solis on for an interview and his first question was about the cranks’ conspiracy theory:
His second question was also about the conspiracy, asking a Cabinet member about Jack Welch, “who knows a bit about how economic data are created,” (boy, does he!) and his fact-free tweet.
— NetNewsCheck reports that Borrell Associates forecasts print newspaper ads will actually increase next year by 0.5 percent, while digital ads will jump 30 percent.
That sounds great, but it’s worth noting that back in 2009 Borrell was predicting newspaper ads would start recovering by 2010:
So here are our latest projections: Newspapers will be down this year, then they’ll start going back up. We expect a 2.4% rebound in newspaper advertising in 2010, and continued single-digit increases over the next several years. By 2014, newspaper ad revenues will be up about 8.7% over 2009 levels. While national newspaper advertising will do just fine, we foresee the greatest growth in local print - going from $8.9 billion this year to $10.1 billion, a 13.4% increase.
Instead total ads (print and online) dropped 6.3 percent in 2010 and 7.3 percent last year, according to the Newspaper Association of America. Ads in 2012 are down 6.6 percent through the first half of the year.
In other words: Don’t bet on a turnaround any time soon.
— Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers turn a big piece of media conventional wisdom—that Republicans are more fiscally responsible presidents than Democrats—on its head:
A study of similar events over previous election cycles — by economists Justin Wolfers, Erik Snowberg and Eric Zitzewitz — found that since 1980, bond yields have tended to rise on news that a Republican will be elected. The pattern held last week, when interest rates on government bonds increased slightly after Romney’s strong performance in the first presidential debate.
This record suggests that markets believe the modern Republican Party has abandoned its historical commitment to fiscal responsibility. They have been right: Presidents Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush all presided over a rising national debt, in many cases despite reasonably strong economic growth. By contrast, before the last recession, debt has fallen as a share of gross domestic product under every Democratic president since at least Harry Truman.
Stocks rise a percentage point or two on average when it’s clear a Republican president will take office, but Stephenson and Wolfers note that doesn’t necessarily mean investors are predicting a better economy.
"BS ... conspiracy theory ... nutty ... conspiracy theory ... lunatics ... hijack ... cranks' conspiracy theory ... conspiracy ..."
Now THAT is good journalism!
"Instead total ads (print and online) dropped 6.3 percent in 2010 and 7.3 percent last year, according to the Newspaper Association of America. Ads in 2012 are down 6.6 percent through the first half of the year."
Maybe that's a price one pays for publishing mostly partisan trivia, state-worship, distortions, and lies.
"Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers turn a big piece of media conventional wisdom—that Republicans are more fiscally responsible presidents than Democrats—on its head."
Every shrewd observer knows that both parties spend other people's money much-more prolifically and impractically than partisans will admit. And people have been writing about the Republican fiscal fraud for quite a while.
#1 Posted by Dan A., CJR on Tue 9 Oct 2012 at 02:23 PM
What about the non-existent ratings of Fox Business Channel, Dan? Maybe that's a price one pays for publishing mostly partisan trivia, business-worship, distortions, and lies. Despite phone-tap Rupert's endlessly deep pockets, of course. Although they may eventually have some success not with real business reporting, but with freak show kooks like Don Imus and Lou Dobbs.
Why do you hate Mr. Chitturn's columns so? Because he doesn't trumpet Der Fuerhrer Rupert's party line? You dislike his journalistic style for being unobjective? You should read your own posts. LOL. Actually, I call it journalistic courage. The courage to call kooks, well, kooks. Kinda like you, Dan. Although, unlike you Dan, I probably won't obsessively post in practically every one of Mr. Chitturn's columns. Thanks for trying to save us from the curse of communism, socialism, liberalism, and satanism, all propagated by the evil government, though.
#2 Posted by mediaman13, CJR on Tue 9 Oct 2012 at 04:07 PM
Ooh, I really struck a nerve, so that you were left with nothing but red herring and ad hominem: Dan suggests that said MSM suffering can be attributed to deceptive, misleadingly partisan, statist journalism; but Dan does not specifically include Fox News or Rupert Murdoch in his comment; therefore Dan is a Fox/Murdoch cheerleader, a hypocrite, and possibly a Nazi-like cult follower.
Oh, and it doesn't take "courage" to relentlessly, tastelessly attack someone you outnumber by about, oh, a million to one — especially when you are on the side of the indomitable force-monopoly, a.k.a. govt.
Too bad your two-minutes-hate doesn't count as an argument, much less a rebuttal. But feel free to limp right back with an actual challenge to the content of my original comment; that is, if you find an actual leg to stand on.
#3 Posted by Dan A., CJR on Wed 10 Oct 2012 at 09:25 AM
Sorry, Dan, wrong again. The ad-hominem attacks and red herrings always originate in the same place: your posts. I would say what you object to is me using your own methods against you, but what your many identical non-rebuttasl demonstrate is that almost everything I say goes far, far over your head.
For the readers: to quote Dan, "Maybe that's a price one pays for publishing mostly partisan trivia, state-worship, distortions, and lies." Sound like an ad-hominem attack folks? Notice he doesn't bother to spell any of this out. Why did I post a counter statement about Fox Business Channel aping Dan's structure? As an example of the blatant hypocrisy that applies those standards in a blatantly partisan matter, but can' t emotionally concieve - intellect doesn't enter into it - that the other side might also be guilty of the same thing. Any good judge weighs BOTH sides.
If Dan was a Fox/Murdoch cheerleader, wouldn't that affect his objectivity? Notice he neither denied it, or gave any evidence that Murdoch does not represent his partisan orthodoxy. If you see any similarity in Dan's frequent one note attempts to discredit Mr. Chitturn's colums on this website with any cult like followings, well, then that will speak for itself. Notice he doesn't address himself at all to were he feels Murdoch - also owner of the Wall Street Journal - and FBC itself fit in the spectrum of the business press.
Yet, all attempts to provide evidence are labeled personal attacks. Well, it's impossible to seperate the kind of mindset that would say that from the arguments themselves. One is the father of the other in this case. It's also a paranoid mindset that believes he's out numbered a million to one in his dislike of the government. He can't mean me. I'm kinda overweight, but I don't think I out number anybody a million to one. And I ask the reader whether they really believe the evidence or their experience really leads to the conclusion that there's a shortage of anti-government opinons expressed in the business press. The busines press is actually the subject of Ryan's columns, not the amorphous, ill-defined MSM (Main Stream Media) that Dan frequently references. Which, I would say, is also indicative of his mindset.
Also, I ask the reader to note in some of Dan's other posts on this website his tendency to believe he can win every argument by just declaring himself the winner.
In any case, Dan, feel free to limp back and make another comment on one of Ryan's columns that will clearly show itself a partisan, evidence void, ad-hominem attack the moment it hits the screen.
#4 Posted by mediaman13, CJR on Wed 10 Oct 2012 at 08:25 PM
Ryan's imaginary bodyguard (phone-a-friend?) is back for more.
"The ad-hominem attacks and red herrings always originate in the same place: your posts."
Obviously false. Case in point: this thread. (And your CJR posting history.)
"I would say what you object to is me using your own methods against you ..."
Don't flatter yourself. Unlike you, I take my opponent's actual words ad positions at face value, then respond accordingly.
"almost everything I say goes far, far over your head."
Over my head and all the way to a straw man in a cornfield somewhere in Iowa.
"to quote Dan, 'Maybe that's a price one pays for publishing mostly partisan trivia, state-worship, distortions, and lies.' Sound like an ad-hominem attack folks?"
To whom or what was I directing the "attack" — you, CJR, or Ryan? Obviously not. So what's your point, besides admitting you're desperate? You still haven't disputed my actual assertion.
"Why did I post a counter statement about Fox Business Channel aping Dan's structure? ... Any good judge weighs BOTH sides."
Both sides of what? That's your contrived dichotomy. You made a straw man and were busted for it, and now you can't hack your way out of it.
"Notice he doesn't address himself at all to were he feels Murdoch - also owner of the Wall Street Journal - and FBC itself fit in the spectrum of the business press."
Saddam Hussein didn't go out of his way to prove he wasn't an ally of al-Qaeda; yet Bush & Co. waged a war based on fallacy and lies anyway. You're in good company when it comes to "logical" justification.
Yet, all attempts to provide evidence are labeled personal attacks."
Again, provably wrong. I reply to your propositions in-kind, and leave it at that. Then, you start the personal BS. Then, I smash that.
"It's also a paranoid mindset that believes he's out numbered a million to one in his dislike of the government."
Again, something I never said. Your "methods" at work again?
"The busines press is actually the subject of Ryan's columns, not the amorphous, ill-defined MSM (Main Stream Media) that Dan frequently references."
Right, because "business press," by comparison, is collated to the Nth degree. Vital distinction there. *smh* (Btw, you would never use such an "ill-defined" term, would you.)
"Also, I ask the reader to note in some of Dan's other posts on this website his tendency to believe he can win every argument by just declaring himself the winner."
Nope, never said I won. Your conscience, on the other hand, may be telling you something. (Lovely subterfuge, btw. Very lawyerly, as if someone was on trial. Quite telling.)
"In any case, Dan, feel free to limp back and make another comment on one of Ryan's columns that will clearly show itself a partisan, evidence void, ad-hominem attack the moment it hits the screen."
The Mediaman Method comes full-circle: when all else fails, employ mimicking, preemption, guilt-projection, and outright reality-inversion.
#5 Posted by Dan A., CJR on Thu 11 Oct 2012 at 08:21 PM