Economists comprise only 5 percent of cable news guests debating economic recovery plan.
Economists comprise only 5 percent of cable news guests debating economic recovery plan.
ThinkProgess has reported that appearances from congressional Republicans have far outnumbered those of their Democratic colleagues in the debate surrounding the economic recovery bill on cable television news. In a new report, Media Matters adds that economists have been largely absent from the debate on these TV programs:
[A] Media Matters for America review of the Sunday talk shows and 12 cable news programs from January 25 through February 8 found that during 139 1/2 hours of programming on Sunday mornings and weekday afternoons and evenings, of 460 total guest appearances in discussions about the economic recovery legislation and debate in Congress, only 25 were made by economists — a mere 5 percent.
The findings appear consistent with an recent observation by Crooks and Liars’ John Amato: “I’m sure you’ve heard about the hundreds of economists that are either for or against President Obama’s stimulus plan. My question to the media is: Where are they?” Matt Yglesias notes, “[I]t’s been striking to me watching things how often you’ll have what amounted to an anchor talking to a political reporter about a substantive policy question neither of them understood.”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Who needs to hear from experts when you can buy opinions?
PEACE
February 12th, 2009 at 11:47 amEconimists aren’t known for having good ‘TV hair’
February 12th, 2009 at 11:47 ameconomists*
February 12th, 2009 at 11:47 ammore and more, that ‘fairness doctrine’ thing sounds appealing…
SOMETHING needs done…
February 12th, 2009 at 11:48 amWhen ABC brings onto its alleged news program George Will to “balance” Paul Krugman, Nobel laureate in economics, then the Mickey Mouse network truly has sold out.
Where is the moral compass in any of these morons these days.
February 12th, 2009 at 11:50 amAs a card-carrying practitioner of the dismal science, I will offer this explanation. On the one hand, us economists aren’t infotainment people. On the other, cable media doesn’t do Serious.
So there.
February 12th, 2009 at 11:51 amhahahaha…Gloria Borger….is there a bigger peanut on cable news outside of FOX?
February 12th, 2009 at 11:52 amI just heard Mike Pence [(R) 6th District Indiana] say he didn’t know what was in the bill because Republicans were shut out.
Then he went on to describe all the “pork” that was in the bill.
Of course, no one on FOX called him on that blatant contradiction.
¶ AIO
February 12th, 2009 at 11:57 amThis wouldn’t have even come to light if it weren’t for the blogs. Long live the blogs. Stick that in your ear, MSM.
February 12th, 2009 at 12:04 pmSo, basically, in order to get on network television to debate something as important as the stimulus package, you either have to be a political hack with no economic experience, or had to have spent a night at a Holiday Inn recently…
February 12th, 2009 at 12:08 pmDems, Repubs, the differnce.
——————————————————————————–
1. Outgoing President George W. Bush quietly boards his helicopter and leaves for Texas, commenting only:
“Today is not about me. Today is a historical day for our nation and people.”
Eight years ago yesterday:
1. Outgoing President Bill Clinton schedules two separate radio addresses to the nation, and organizes a public farewell speech/ rally in downtown Washington D.C. scheduled to directly conflict with incoming President Bush’s inauguration ceremony.
Yesterday:
2. President Bush leaves office without issuing a single Presidential pardon, only granting a commutation of sentence to two former border patrol agents convicted of shooting a convicted drug smuggler. He does not grant any type of clemency to Scooter Libby or any other former political aide, ally, or business partner.
Eight years ago yesterday:
2. President Clinton issues 140 pardons and several commutations of sentence on his final day in office. Included in these are: billionaire financier, convicted tax evader, and leading Democratic campaign contributor Marc Rich; Whitewater scandal figure Susan McDougal; Congressional Post Office Scandal figure and former Democratic Congressman Dan Rostenkowski; convicted bank fraud, sexual assault and child porn perpetrator and former Democratic Congressman Melvin Reynolds; and convicted drug felon Roger Clinton, the President’s half-brother.
Yesterday:
3. The Bush daughters leave gift baskets in the White House bedrooms for the Obama daughters, containing flowers, candy, stuffed animals, DVD’s and CD’s, and heartfelt notes of encouragement and advice for the young girls on how to prepare for their new lives in the White House.
Eight years ago Yesterday:
3. Clinton and Gore staffers rip computer wires and electrical outlets from the White House walls, stuff piles of notebook papers into the White House toilets, systematically remove the letter “W” from every computer key-pad in the entire White House, and damage several thousand dollars worth of furniture in the White House master bedroom.
Eight years
Headlines On This Date 4 Years Ago:
“Republicans spending $42 million on inauguration, while troops Die in unarmored Humvees”
“Bush extravagance exceeds any reason during tough economic times”
“Fat cats get their $42 million inauguration party, Ordinary Americans get the shaft”
Headlines Today:
“Historic Obama Inauguration will cost only $170 million”
“Obama Spends $170 million on inauguration; America Needs A Big Party”
“Everyman Obama shows America how to celebrate”
“Citibank executives contribute $8 million to Obama Inauguration”
February 12th, 2009 at 12:16 pmThis is a great point. Does anyone have any information about economist consensus? Or at least the pro v. con arguments from economists perspective?
P.S. I know that Krugman won a Nobel Prize. Are there any other economists weighing in?
February 12th, 2009 at 12:19 pmsorry guys. the Obama honeymoon is OVER
February 12th, 2009 at 12:21 pmJay says:
Oh Jay, Jay, Jay… OJ for short, thathas been SO debunked. you are such a lying sack of troll. Can’t you do better than that?
February 12th, 2009 at 12:22 pm“[I]t’s been striking to me watching things how often you’ll have what amounted to an anchor talking to a political reporter about a substantive policy question neither of them understood.”
Ain’t that the truth?
February 12th, 2009 at 12:23 pmThat’s an example of what passes for news today.
Scant information and loads of opinion.
News has become an entertainment outlet with the bias of its corporate owners dictating what is broadcast.
Economics is a dry subject – OK, we get that – so present a few economics professors and experts on the economy to educate the public on its basics; to spell it out for us.
Bloviating opinions from persons who know little more than I are presented as offering valid information.
February 12th, 2009 at 12:23 pmThe media is derelict in its duty to the point where I think it borders on criminal negligence.
jay. Bush made plenty of mistakes. But, I’ll concede that there is definitely a double standard in terms of MSM reporting between Bush and Obama.
And, although many want to criminalize Bush’s mistakes, that’s what they were, mistakes. He was a decent man trying to do the best job he could under the circumstances.
February 12th, 2009 at 12:24 pm“In the next hour, we’ll have Chuck Norris and the girls from tv’s “Rock of Love”, to tell us how to comprehend the stimulus package”
February 12th, 2009 at 12:24 pmJay, get your head out of the place where the sun don’t shine. You don’t know what you are talking about as you parrot false assertionds from the rightwingers.
February 12th, 2009 at 12:26 pmjay Says:
Dems, Repubs, the differnce.
____________
Apart from spelling “difference” wrong, you forgot to compare:
Bush’s FIVE TRILLION DOLLAR accumulated deficit to Clinton’s $127BB surplus,
A gain of 3,020,000 jobs during the Botch Debacle to a gain of 22,760,000 jobs during the Clinton years,
A stock market down 19% during Botch’s reign to a market up 226% during Clinton’s admin,
And, last but not least of all, Bush’s multiple hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilian deaths w/ Clinton’s hummer in the Oval Office.
There! A more fair and balanced comparison.
February 12th, 2009 at 12:33 pmbackup Says:
But, I’ll concede that there is definitely a double standard in terms of MSM reporting between Bush and Obama.
_____________
Right right right… the MSM spent FAR TOO MANY years kissing Botch’s Cheney up and down and back again…
_____________
And, although many want to criminalize Bush’s mistakes, that’s what they were, mistakes. He was a decent man trying to do the best job he could under the circumstances.
_____________
Well… deliberately distorting intelligence to justify an unnecessary and hideously bloody attack on Iraq is a mistake, but hardly an innocent one.
You’re entitle to your opinion, no matter how ridiculous, AND your opinion is only your opinion. Botch was NOT a decent man. You DON’T make this big of mess being “innocent”.
Still planting those memes, huh?
February 12th, 2009 at 12:36 pmThe MMfA study, remarkably, overcounts the number of economists.
They generously included, for example:
Niall Ferguson – Historian
Amity Schlaes – English Major
The former is a fan of the flat tax, the latter has been caught misreading/fabricating employment data from the Great Depression.
In reality, only half those cited by MMfA are bona fide economists, so the situation is even more skewed than at first blush.
February 12th, 2009 at 12:36 pmEconomists have a bad reputation for being objective. Since there is nothing spectacular or tittilating about this, and it does not involve misguided emotions or the opportunity for someone to hyperventilate for the wrong reasons or to speculate about anything sexual, it falls on deaf ears and doesn’t pay the bills. Krugman and Reich are already spoken for, and James Galbraith is not photogenic, so actually finding another competent economist would take serious effort. Media organizations seem averse to that idea. Like Mr. Geithner, they love to speak in broad outlines and generalities and offer instant solutions to complex problems. The MSM is clueless and the main street cable guys are almost as bad. The real info, as someone has already said, is to be found in the blogs and serious print media that are not so concerned with keeping advertisers happy. The simplest truth is that “nobody know the trouble [I've see] we’re in”.
February 12th, 2009 at 12:36 pmbackup Says:
Are there any other economists weighing in?
_________
I heard Fox plans on bringing Joe the Plumber in to talk about it!
February 12th, 2009 at 12:38 pmB-cup, I completely disagree. I saw Bush that way eight years ago — a decent, overmatched man trying to do the best he could, but the last eight years have convinced me otherwise.
The Bush I saw operate in the White House is not a decent man by any stretch of the imagination. He’s mean-spirited, he’s insecure, he’s not willing to take responsibility for his mistakes, had no respect for the rule of law except when it suited him (which is really no respect whatsoever) and his rhetoric almost never matched his performance.
He was a disaster, and I don’t use that term lightly.
February 12th, 2009 at 12:38 pmPeople I call decent don’t make torture a policy. People who torture I call criminals.
February 12th, 2009 at 12:40 pmkaty Says:
more and more, that ‘fairness doctrine’ thing sounds appealing…
SOMETHING needs done…
The Fairness Doctrine isn’t the answer since it is almost impossible to enforce. What we need is to go back to the media ownership rules before Clinton, to his ever loving shame, signed the bill that allowed the current consolidation of our MSM into three or four major corporations, owned by conservatives. The fact is that he who owns the media controls the message.
On the other hand, this Depression might do it for us. When you read that Newscorp lost 6.4 billion dollars in the last quarter, that should be telling the corporate media something.
What needs to happen is for all of us to stop paying attention to the MSM and get our news the only place that is not controlled by conservatives, and that would be the Internet. The corporate owned MSM may just be driving themselves into extinction.
February 12th, 2009 at 12:49 pmbackup Says:
And, although many want to criminalize Bush’s mistakes, that’s what they were, mistakes. He was a decent man trying to do the best job he could under the circumstances.
Authorizing torture was a “mistake”? Firing US Attorney’s because they wouldn’t go along with his program was a “mistake”. Spying illegally on US citizens was a “mistake”. Boy backup, you truly are a moron. What’s your IQ? I’m betting it’s in the room temperature range.
Here’s some advice for you. Find a critical thinking class at your local community college, stop getting your news only from Fixed News and then maybe you won’t sound like a total moron every time you post.
February 12th, 2009 at 12:51 pmHeh… did I get there first again, ralphie?
February 12th, 2009 at 12:53 pmFred and Bilbo.
If the answers are that simple, why do the abuses continue under an Obama administration?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/feb/08/binyam-mohamed-torture-guantanamo-bay
There is a lot going on in the White House (today and yesterday) that aren’t as cut and dried as you would like to make them out to be.
February 12th, 2009 at 12:57 pmGuido the Loving OBGYN Says:
Cable and local news both need an enema.
Stop watching them. If we simply tune them out, they will eventually become extinct. There are exactly two “news” programs I watch and that would be Olberman and Maddow. I get the rest of my news from the Internet.
For the life of me I don’t understand how progressives can watch shows like Morning Joe. They must like being tortured because that is exactly what his show is.
February 12th, 2009 at 12:59 pmAre you really trying to push the notion that Obama personally approved the torture of any one individual as bush did? Seriously? I’m with bilbo, something is wrong with your thinking.
February 12th, 2009 at 1:02 pmbackup Says:
Fred and Bilbo.
If the answers are that simple, why do the abuses continue under an Obama administration?
So, you think that President Obama can fix the abuses of the last 8 years in three weeks? And how do you know that Obama isn’t doing anything about it? Finally, saying that conditions have deteriorated since Obama took office assumes they weren’t deteriorating before Obama took office. The hunger strike and forced feedings started long before Obama took office. I read articles about them being force-fed months ago. On the other hand, what would you have them do? Should they just stand by and watch them starve to death?
I do think that Obama needs to clean house at Guantanamo now. He needs to fire everyone who is currently there and replace them with people he chooses. He may be in the process of doing that as we speak, we don’t know that he isn’t.
February 12th, 2009 at 1:04 pmThis is why I vote with my remote. I will NOT patronize the dissemination of misinformation. I can’t seem to be able to stomach it anymore.
February 12th, 2009 at 1:05 pmI rely on Keith and Rachel. They are my sources for clarity.
Yes, and the Bush White House depended on that gray area to push its limits in the direction they wanted to go.
If it were cut-and-dried, they would have stood no chance of getting away with it. But because there’s uncertainty at every level — classified vs. unclassified information, questionable legal advice, blurring of responsibility through chain of command — Bush, Cheney, Yoo, Addington and all the rest of the cabal felt pretty damn comfortable that they could get away with it.
And if any of those gray areas get close to being cut-and-dried, they can always yell “BOO! Terrorist behind ya!” and scare 30% of the people into nodding their heads in unison and handing over more freedoms.
February 12th, 2009 at 1:05 pmralph. I’m not going to disagree with you here. I disagree with those that claim Bush’s mistakes were literally criminal.
February 12th, 2009 at 1:06 pmKeith Olbermann is no less a partisan than Bill O’Reilly. I listen to him, but I wouldn’t consider what he has to say as adding clarity. Rachel Maddow is better.
February 12th, 2009 at 1:13 pmAs an absolute that may be true. But, as a matter of degrees or on a comparitive scale…..you lose credibility making such a statement.
February 12th, 2009 at 1:20 pmbackup Says:
I rely on Keith and Rachel. They are my sources for clarity.
Keith Olbermann is no less a partisan than Bill O’Reilly. I listen to him, but I wouldn’t consider what he has to say as adding clarity. Rachel Maddow is better.
Keith Olberman does not lie. O’Reilly lies daily. And if you think we believe you watch either Olberman or Maddow you are truly delusional. It is very apparent to the posters here where you get your news.
Too bad for you that there’s no cure for stupid.
February 12th, 2009 at 1:20 pm“[I]t’s been striking to me watching things how often you’ll have what amounted to an anchor talking to a political reporter about a substantive policy question neither of them understood.”
Good call, Matt!
This is the way it is with every issue addressed by the capitalist, corporate media.
February 12th, 2009 at 1:22 pmI wouldn’t make a blanket statement that ALL of his “mistakes” were criminal. But I’m betting several of them were.
February 12th, 2009 at 1:25 pmWhat’s your problem with finding the facts…then we will know. Don’t say it will be a partisan witch hunt…that’s what the gop does….see Clinton. Dems tend to clean their own houses, gop, not so much.
February 12th, 2009 at 1:38 pmrhf. If you like to listen to Olbermann, that’s okay. Sometimes, it’s nice to listen to someone that says what you want to hear.
But, that’s a lot different than considering that person a source of ‘clarity’.
Just think of it this way. What if you hear me saying that I tune into Bill O’Reilly or Sean Hannity for ‘clarity’. Their both parisan hacks that want to convince us that their half the story is all there is. Just like Olbermann.
If you want clarity, you should probably consider those with an opposing view.
Here’s a site that offers the other side to the Olbermann story:
http://www.olbermannwatch.com/
February 12th, 2009 at 1:59 pmmy bad: partisan hacks.
February 12th, 2009 at 2:00 pmIf they hosted an economist who could lay it all out for the layman and make the causes of this meltdown clear, it would be considered biased—like those earth scientists who take the side of nature.
February 12th, 2009 at 2:04 pmrhf. I disagree. How do you explain this. Democrats have an overwhelming majority in the House and the Senate. Obama is the President with tremendous support at home and abroad. If the information that you site is so incriminating, why the inaction?
Not only would prosecuting Bush on these slam dunk charges be an incredible opportunity for Democrats to ensure Republican obscurity for decades – it would also be a moral obligation to see that justice is done.
Obama is a very bright man. If the evidence was conclusive, Democrats would have strong motivation and obviously the means to make it happen. And most importantly, the obligation.
But, instead this:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/29498869@N07/3213584724/
If you get your information from Olbermann, I can understand your confusion.
But, if you confront reality (and broaden your sources), it’s much easier to conclude that Bush’s mistakes were just that; mistakes.
February 12th, 2009 at 2:28 pmbackup
Your laser-beam-like zealotry oozes thru every word. You have no idea where I get information from. I work in anewsroom A highly conservative one. i am bombarded with repugnican putrid gas all day long.
So….. for CLARITY I go to Keith and Rachel. The advantage of NOT being fanatical is that you are open-minded and absorb a variety of ideas. Some are more difficult to digest than others.
February 12th, 2009 at 2:58 pmI feel sorry for people like you
“Keith Olbermann is no less a partisan than Bill O’Reilly”
One tells it like “it” is the other tell it how he see “it” My question to you is….which one tells it like it is?????
So you see, they are not the same. I leave it up to you who tells it like it is.
Nothing is the same except your reflection in the mirror and even then what you see is not what other see.
February 12th, 2009 at 3:07 pm“He was a disaster, and I don’t use that term lightly.
ralph. I’m not going to disagree with you here. I disagree with those that claim Bush’s mistakes were literally criminal.”
If it was US detainees in vietnam prisons who were torture with full government knowledge, would the US go to the international courts??? YES
When the autrocities in Serbia were brought to the world attention, Were those responsible searched out and put on trail??? YES!!!
So why is it different when the US government does it?????
Answer that question for all who feel the US was justified with its torture.
February 12th, 2009 at 3:15 pmThe conservative that listens to Fox and nods in agreement believes he is being ‘told like it is’.
The progressive that listens to MSNBC and nods in agreement, believes he is being ‘told like it is’.
Those similarities are striking.
My point is that neither is being ‘told like it is’. They’re both being feed partisan half truths to push a particular agenda and pander for ratings.
Partisan warm fuzzy? yes. Clarity? no.
February 12th, 2009 at 3:18 pmkrystalviews. If you met someone that read the Inquirer for news, you might possibly comment that the Inquirer is great for entertainment, but maybe there are better sources for real information.
I’m only saying that Olbermann is great for entertainment, but maybe there are better sources for real information.
February 12th, 2009 at 3:23 pmThat may be what you’re saying now, but earlier you were saying that he was essentially exactly the same as O’Reilly.
February 12th, 2009 at 3:28 pmThose aren’t incompatible statements.
February 12th, 2009 at 5:47 pmCable news, like the MSM ,is largely a bought off crock of shit!
February 12th, 2009 at 7:16 pmthanks you
Sesli Sohbet
February 13th, 2009 at 6:09 amSesli chat-
Seslichat
SeslikameraliSohbet-
spencers mom Says:
——————————————————————————–
Who needs to hear from experts when you can buy opinions?
PEACE
“The meaning of peace is the absence of opposition to socialism.” Karl Marx.
You right at home.
February 13th, 2009 at 1:34 pmI’m no economist, BUT…
February 13th, 2009 at 5:32 pmLet’s look at a few facts.
1. This “stimulus” bill was rushed through with little opportunity for the legislators, much less the taxpayers, to evaluate it.
2. Despite the rush job on a bill over 100 times (!) greater than FDR’s largest annual budget during the great depression, its backers refused to sever provisions clearly NOT immediately stimulative. Why? Is there a concern they might not stand on their own merits? Is it not corrupt to hold the truly urgent provisions hostage to pass the patronage wish list?
3. The largest part of the spending does not occur until more than two years from now. Hardly an urgent response matter, and likely to be hugely inflationary if any quick stimulus can be effected.
4. The truly enormous increase in the debt we are piling onto our grandchildren, who got no vote on this, concerns me.
5. Responsible governance would suggest that pouring gasoline onto a fire that was fed by overspending and loose credit is a poor idea. To max out the National credit card to do so is not the “change” I was “hoping” for.
6. I was around the last time we greatly accelerated domestic entitlements in a weak economy. We got double-digit inflation, high unemployment, and years of stagflation. What is different? I heard that we were going to abandon the failed policies of the past, not amplify them 100-fold.
qzvxhq Says:I’m no economist,
No need to go any further. Your statement here says it all!
February 14th, 2009 at 7:19 pmyo nunca habia visto a Eugenio Derbez haciendo el papel de malo pero esta pelicula esta muy bonita y si le cae ambos papeles pero lo disfruto mas cuando hace el papel de comedian
March 12th, 2009 at 10:21 amk?z oyunlar? | araba oyunlar? | flash oyun | oyun sitesi | porno izle
Thank you very much.
April 15th, 2009 at 10:52 amsesli chat
sesli sohbet
Arsivlik
Film indir
Mp4 Film
SesliSohbet
thank you..
April 30th, 2009 at 9:37 am