And this doesn’t prove it. I’m sympathetic to the argument, but, for all I know, the stimulus could be immensely damaging, even to jobs, in the long run. Another analysis could come along deconstructing it. But its sources would have to be as mainstream and as credible. At a minimum, the counter-analysis would have to go beyond Scott Brown’s, which Leonhardt cites:
As Senator Scott Brown of Massachusetts, the newest member of Congress, said, in a nice summary of the misperceptions, the stimulus might have saved some jobs, but it “didn’t create one new job.”
The larger point is, readers are confronted with a blizzard of economics data, and, in this area, especially, news stories really aren’t enough. It’s good for an analysis to be fair, but it’s better to be fair and actually say something.
Okay fine. It was a pretty good piece. But why on earth does he, and you, quote *Scott Brown* in his piece? What qualification does BROWN have to comment on the effects of the stimulus? I mean, if you have to get a quote to counter your own analysis, why not seek comment from someone QUALIFIED to speak to it? That would improve journalism right there, by providing quotes in your work by people who are QUALIFIED to speak to it.
And furthermore, is what Scott Brown said THE TRUTH or not? Do we know? Is he lying or mistaken? They just let him blather on in print -- why? Why quote someone like ***Scottt Brown**** in an otherwise intelligent and nicely done piece? And if you are trying to generate page hits by quoting him by name, at least tell us if he is correct, or not.
What is it with you journos, you throw in any old quote from whoever, no matter how unqualified, just to fill up print space? That's a serious question, Mr. Starkman. Why do that?
#1 Posted by James, CJR on Wed 17 Feb 2010 at 10:26 AM
The idea behind "jobs created or saved" really isn't all that difficult. It's a case of ceterus paribus, or all else being equal, applied to the models used to assess the stimulus' impact. It's basic economics that's taught in the first few weeks. The fact that some people either don't know this or pretend like they don't know this is astonishing.
#2 Posted by Brian J, CJR on Wed 17 Feb 2010 at 10:48 AM
Thanks, James and Brian.
James, I think the Brown quote belongs in both places. One of the nice things about the Leonhardt piece is that it moves the debate beyond the "it didn't create a single job" vs. "yes it did" stage. Brown isn't cited as the counter-argument but as a national figure engaged in the debate we're trying to get beyond. And, while not an expert, he is now responsible for voting on economic issues. Again, I'm sure there are lots of reasons not to like the stimulus; just not that one.
Brian, that's a good perspective. But if the point is that the average newspaper reader should be expected to be familiar with how economic models work, I can't agree. The basic economics need to be spelled out in pieces like this.
#3 Posted by Dean Starkman, CJR on Wed 17 Feb 2010 at 12:34 PM
Dean,
I appreciate your point but I strongly disagree. In fact, I contend that one of the major problems with legacy journalists is their propensity to stuff their pieces with erroneous and misleading quotes from politicos who are unqualified to expound on the subject at hand.
Witness:
Scott Brown, a real estate attorney seated in Congress only two weeks ago, presumes to issue forth with misleading and distorted statements about the stimulus, about which he knows exactly nothing. They are nothing but talking points devised by political strategists, in fact, which are duly copied down, stuffed into a piece about whether the stimulus worked or not, and published in a national paper. Likewise, Marc Theissen, a former SPEECHWRITER, goes on all the cable networks, even CSPAN, holding forth on foreign policy and opinions on the legality of committing torture upon US prisoners. He should be laughed out of the studio. Likewise, the former vice president's daughter Liz is invited on all the cable channels and widely quoted in national papers on her opinion about Afghanistan, war strategy, and foreign policy. The cable dudes seem to prefer her to Tom Ricks because she's blond (and thinner). I'd prefer to hear Tom Ricks' opinion.
How informative is this kind of stuff to the reader? Actually, it is misleading to the point of being worthless. Isn't it the journos responsibility to vet the qualifications of the people whose opinions they publish? We readers are relying on the jouno, and taking the journo's word, through his reputation and credibility, that these people have some qualification to issue forth with an opinion. And none of the above have the slightest qualification to render an opinion on these subjects.
Now, if you want to quote Scott Brown on the nuances of mortgage cramdown, well okay, maybe he'd know something about that. But if you want political opinion on stimulus, who on the Republican side is actually qualified to speak to economic and fiscal issues? No one? So Leonhardt scrapes Scott Brown out of the bottom of the barrel? Was his opinion helpful in any conceivable way -- to the reader?
#4 Posted by James, CJR on Wed 17 Feb 2010 at 02:11 PM
As a news-addicted resident of the Commonwealth of MA, I think that David Leonhardt justifiably references Scott Brown's "jobs" comment. Why? Because Brown avowed during his campaign that he would be independent of GOP party-line politics and not be anyone's water carrier in Washington. Then, within days of taking office, and still wet-eared, he buys into Michael Steele's absurd comment that "not in the history of mankind has the government ever created a job".
#5 Posted by Art Kane, CJR on Thu 18 Feb 2010 at 05:05 PM
Well, that's exactly my point, Mr. Kane. Why doesn't Leonhardt just say "The GOP position on job creation vis a vis the stimulus package is blah blah blah." Why go along with the pretense that the statement issued forth unbidden from Scott Brown's brain? It was a statement concocted by political strategists and PR people, why not inform the reader of *that*?
It's dishonest, and bad journalism, and outright stenography, to copy down a statement that virtually every GOP spox repeats verbatim, and pretend that it is, and attribute it to, a statement of an individual politico. It isn't. So Mr. Leonhardt is actually misleading his readership with that kind of stenography.
I recognize that it is the standard operating procedure in political journalism, but *should* it be?
#6 Posted by James, CJR on Thu 18 Feb 2010 at 06:44 PM
For the protesters, the publicity was a relief. Some of them have spoken with regret about an early tactical mistake in their uprising: the failure to counter the influential role of state-run television, which depicted their movement as foreign and violent. The channel’s coverage of the protests — which often meant ignoring them — helped President Hosni Mubarak’s government regain its balance.
Realizing the importance of the media war, the protesters have fought back, attracting allies like Ms. Shazly and spreading their message on their own, from locations they try to keep secret. One is an apartment near Tahrir Square where a rotating cast of 20 or so antigovernment activists check gfs disseminate the news of their revolt on a Facebook page named after the square.
check gfs
#7 Posted by boberzayka, CJR on Sat 12 Feb 2011 at 11:25 AM