This is a common lament on lefty Twitter:
Dear Joe Biden: you are WINNING on policy. You are HELPING voters. But you are LOSING media, and because of that, you are LOSING the hearts and minds of voters. pic.twitter.com/7fjL6xoPo5
— Will Stancil (@whstancil) October 6, 2023
I get the frustration over the headlines, but there's really and truly nothing new or politically biased about this. It's always been the case that good economic news has a cost: namely that the Fed might decide the economy is running too hot and needs to be reined in. Financial reporters (and headline writers) have been reporting this forever.
More generally, the common lefty belief that the media gives identical economic news positive coverage when Rs are in power and negative coverage when Ds are in power—well, let's just say I've seen little credible evidence of this. The examples that get hauled out are nearly always tendentious comparisons of economic conditions that aren't, in fact, the same. Just to name one common error, the same number can be good or bad depending on whether it's going up or down. If unemployment drops from 4.2% to 4%—and the rest of the economy is strong—that's good. Conversely, if it goes up from 3.8% to 4%—and the rest of the economy is mixed—it's bad. This is perfectly reasonable even though unemployment is at 4% in both cases.
There's not really much of a case that financial reporting is biased against Democrats. Or, if there is, let's see the evidence. There's very little literature on the subject, but what there is suggests a slight pro-Democratic bias.
I hadn't heard the one that the same news is treated differently by party, but I had heard -- and noticed -- that credit accrues differently in public and the media.
Despite Bush I ending in a recession, Clinton ending in a strong economy, Bush I ending in the Great recession, Obama ending in a strong economy, Trump ending in a crap economy (not all him, COVID sucked), and Biden's looking strong STILL the media and the public act as if the GOP is strong on the economy and Dems are not.
This is, I guess, largely because Dems consider the economy a way to help the general public (good economic policy is just another in the toolbox to help people's lives), while the GOP considers helping the economy be to an end in and of itself. This drives the media and public to think, "The GOP cares about the economy, and the Democrats care more about helping poor people."
All good points, except for this:
GOP considers helping the economy be to an end in and of itself
In contrast to Democrats, Republicans see the chief end of economic policy as helping the ultra-wealthy to flourish. That's it. They've never enacted a single damn policy in my lifetime that wasn't tailored *expressly* to enrich large corporations and their donor class at the expense of everyone else. Nothing. Nada. Zip.
+10!
This. + 2
+1
"...helping the ultra-wealthy to flourish..."
I don't think it is the ultra-wealthy per se. It is more like "the people that give them money", which, as it happened, tend to be rich (and ultra-rich). The Republicans will not help an ultra-rich person that would give money only to Democrats.
Republican policies help George Soros. Policies cater to classes, not individuals, so your point seems a distinction without a difference.
It's pretty striking that "the GOP tends to destroy the economy and blow up the deficit" is not a standard journalism story along the lines of "crime is out of control and the only way to stop it is lots of cops and more punishment".
I.E., it's weird that "Republicans are great for the economy" is buried deep in the lizard brain and is apparently unbudgeable, but that's what a TV show like "The Appprentice" does I guess.
" it's weird that "Republicans are great for the economy" is buried deep in the lizard brain and is apparently unbudgeable,"
I think it is because Republican keep talking about this, so it looks like they care more about it. Democrats also talk about other issues, so it gives the impression that they care less about it. So people get the impression that Republicans care more than Democrats about the economoy and therefore that Republicans can be trusted more about the economy.
The fact that this is divorced from reality is just irrelevant. People don't actually use facts to make up their opinions. They use their impressions.
Sorry, but coverage of economic news -- like all news -- varies widely depending on whether the president is a D or an R. Journalism has a double standard and anyone with eyes and ears knows it.
Imagine a President Trump with record jobs gains, near record-low unemployment, a sudden and historic drop in inflation, and you can bet the news would be trumpeting the astounding performance of the economy. You know it. Maybe they'd be a little reluctant to give Trump full credit, but they be saying the economy is looking strong like it hasn't for decades. "There's no denying it, the economic performance we're seeing right now is far beyond anyone's expectations of a year or two ago."
Now, some of that is because Trump & Republicans have a bigger megaphone than Dems, and media takes cues from them. Dems do not get the same respect. Dem messaging is weak too. That's a related but different matter.
Biden & Dems have a legitimate beef with media. They also need to do better at getting the word out themselves. No easy task, but necessary.
Yep. They grade on a curve - given that Republicans (with the possible exception of Bush 1) have been publicly idiotic, when there's good news it's a "wow, look how good he's doing!"
By contrast, since Democrats are the party of taking governance seriously, coverage is a lot more negative because the expectations of the journalistic class are higher.
Nevermind the whole thing about how presidents aren't very influential on the economy's broad features in most cases...
Another peeve or two about reporting economics and politics:
a) Assumption that the GOP is the party of fiscal responsibility (contradicted by budget deficits of every president in my adult life)
b) Sheer innumeracy ("Prices went up more than 6% last month"; no, they did not; that never happened)
One thing I keep in mind about the "journalistic class": the ones who report the news we all hear are the elite of the elite, and usually paid accordingly. When they report about the price of eggs, it's a foreign concept to them. The pain of paying high prices is a minor nuisance at worst. Likewise, the benefit of getting a new job or a few bucks more an hour is something that happens to other people, not them.
What does matter to the journalistic class is their 401(k) accounts. If the stock market goes down, that's a bad economy. If it goes up, a good one. With the market still well off its all-time highs from the beginning of 2022, journalists' personal view of the economy is that we're still in a recession. That's how they report it, and that's why much of the country believes likewise. As the market recovers and hits new highs again, will the journalists begin singing a different tune about economics news? Something to watch for.
IOW, they didn't land a job and changed their beliefs to protect it. They got the job because of their beliefs.
Sorta like how the donor class shoots the money hose at candidate because of their moral failings, not despite them.
(eyes rolling)
you need to take a look at the average reporter's paycheck if you think they're the elite of the elites. don't forget these are the people collecting the news for the highly paid news readers. this drives me nuts!
Can you not read for context? Wasn't it obvious we were talking about 'journalists' who are paid to play the part, but not actually be one? Trust me, they are highly paid whether you believe it or not.
Paul Krugman disagrees with Kevin about the media’s negative bias when reporting on the economy and, a Krugman point out in this article, so does Moody’s Mark Zandi:
“ Beyond that, there’s good reason to believe that media reports about the economy have had a strongly negative bias. One thing that has gone really, really right in America lately is job creation, yet the public consistently reports having heard more negative than positive news about employment.
And let’s not let economists off the hook. As Mark Zandi of Moody’s Analytics points out, many economists have been predicting recession month after month for the past year. Sooner or later, a recession will no doubt happen, but as he says, “In my 30-plus years as a professional economist, I’ve never seen such recession pessimism,” even as the economy has remained resilient. And this pessimism has surely filtered through to the public.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/15/opinion/americans-negative-economy.html
Here is the link Krugman posted to back up his statement that the public consistently reports having heard more positive and negative news about employment:
https://data.sca.isr.umich.edu/get-table.php?c=YB&y=2023&m=3&n=24&f=pdf&k=1cee896bc2dac6aac33c0e845117470a
I will never forget how much attention the spike in gasoline prices got in The NY Times and WaPo but how little coverage was given when those prices later dropped significantly. What I saw was harping on the price of food but little recognition of the drop in gasoline prices. Krugman and others have also correctly pointed out the the polls showing that the majority people say the economy is bad also report that most of them also report that their own situation is good. So why the impression that the economy is bad if they are doing well? You can bet it is the constant media claims that we are heading towards a recession, that wages aren’t keeping up with prices (they are).
The "liberal" MSM are really center-right economically, although leftish culturally. They will oppose anything that smells of socialism. When Bernie Sanders was briefly ahead in the 2020 primaries the NY Times and WaPo jumped all over him. Of course they favor business interests over labor - they oppose labor in their own shops and they rely on advertising for income, not donations from labor. Until fairly recently most papers tended to endorse Republicans for President:
https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1988-11-06-8802130584-story.html
https://noahveltman.com/endorsements/
Many swung toward Democrats - who are now economically similar to Republicans in the Eisenhower administration - as Trump and other lunatics took over the Republican party.
Most newspapers still try to report facts whatever is on the editorial pages. But now we have the wing-nut media reporting alternate facts, which are wildly biased right. If your views are strong right you can find major media which will reinforce them, but good luck finding media which are what the rest of the world would consider socialist or anything other than mildly left.
Overall there is a powerful rightward bias in the news media.
Pingback: By golly that Kevin Drum is right | Zingy Skyway Lunch
I'm a bit surprised by Kevin's comment, because he himself has made the point the media has totally ignored: namely, that while inflation went up, wages did too. Every media source I see has repeatedly hammered at the high inflation under Biden, but only a few have noted that some (perhaps much) of this is due to supply shortages. And only Kevin has pointed out that wage growth has essentially matched inflation.
It is hypocritical and absurd for the media to hammer away at the inflation message, ignore pertinent facts, and then act surprised when they find that their readers and viewers believe them and rate inflation as a horrendous problem. Republicans ARE better at bringing down inflation, because they are also better at bringing down economic growth (as measured by GDP).
It's also worth noting -- for those of us with a longer perspective -- that inflation under Biden never rose to around half of what it was 40 years ago, although THAT comparison too is made constantly in the media. In 1980, I remember taking an 11% loan on a vehicle because my money market fund was paying 21%.
Similarly, the media pounds away at the debt and deficit when Democrats are in the White House, but largely ignores them when a Republican is president.
There is clear bias in WHICH economic facts the media
chooses to emphasize at any point and in what context is or is not provided.
That's why it's surprising to me, as a regular reader of Kevin's blog, to find that he -- who DOES regularly provide the context and emphases that the rest of the media do not -- denying bias in the media's economic coverage. The bias is precisely in what Kevin does that they don't.
the fact of the matter is that inflation was at it's highest point since the early 80s, so that's why the comparison. that's how we look at things, how we judge things. in fact inflation was much higher than it had been at any point since. and if you ventured into a grocery store, you noticed it. not much solace that it wasn't anywhere near what it was in 1980.
Woe is me: Inflation is the highest it's ever been since last week!
Well said.
It may not be (directly) partisan, and it's certainly not particularly new, but there is definitely bias vividly on display in these headlines, namely a bias that massively over emphasizes inflation risk as opposed to the risk to worker incomes inherent in labor market slack.
This is exactly the same bias that tends to dominate the FMOC, and the public pronouncements of many high profile economists. All of which makes for a nice, mutually-reinforcing narrative:
The financial media, quoting those very economists, over emphasize the anti-inflationary aspect of the Fed's reaction function, which in turn helps the Fed justify letting those "expectations" utterly dominate the "full employment" half of their legal mandate--even when, as is often the case, and as is certainly the case now, the actual data are showing no active channel between robust jobs growth and increased inflation pressures.
I expect that if "partisan" bias turns up in any independent studies, this is the form it will take:
Since the 1930s, it has been almost definitional of Democratic economic policies to try to use fiscal policy to run a hotter macro-economy than Republicans (and their investor class donors) are generally comfortable with: public spending increases, broad based tax cuts and credits.
More often than not, over time and to varying degrees, this policy orientation succeeds in giving labor more leverage relative to capital. And this runs headlong into the elite media's pro-investor/anti-inflationary bias.
TL;DR - The financial media, like the Fed, have a very definite tendency to think that 1978 is always right around the corner, and that's not a very flattering environment in which to be a pro-growth, more-or-less Keynesian Democrat.
At least, that's what they say when in public eye.
Sounds like an autocatylic reaction that's taken on a life of it's own.
it doesn't matter what the media thinks, how they play the numbers. it matters what the fed thinks, and if you've been following the news for the past year or so, you can guess how the fed most likely will react to the news.
The strangest aspect of economic reporting in the US has been the sudden adoption of "economists' expectations" as the benchmark for evaluating monthly data in lieu of the traditional reference to trends over time. It's especially odd given that economists' expectations are usually wrong, but instead of reporting "Economists prove to be know-nothings yet again" they report the anomalies as if something mysterious must be going on in "the economy".
My guess is that the public wants an 'intellectual' authority telling them what they want to hear, not all that boring numbers and stuff.
+10!
Does it make any sense to be so conservative that you never make any progress or so progressive that you invest in every hairbrained idea? Of course not. This whole left-right model is group think, meaning universally accepted nonsense. It's like having one football team that hates offensive players and another team that hates defensive players.
Suggestion: Think of voting for a politician the way you think of choosing a physician. Do you want a doctor that cares about improving some parts of your body and doesn't care about the side effects? Likewise, vote for politicians that care about the entire constituency, which means that everything is a means to serving one end, and the entire constituency is that end, even if it's at your expense.
So, you can ignore left and right if the choice is between up and down where up = cares for the entire constituency, and down = divide and conquer. If everybody had been doing that, Jimmy Carter would have won a second term, Ronald Reagan would have been known as an actor, and the economy, along with everything else, would be doing much better.
"Running too hot" is not science, no matter how much the Fed wants it to be.
Science involves careful observation, applying rigorous skepticism about what is observed, given that cognitive assumptions can distort how one interprets the observation.
Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
In other words, if I'm defending my assumptions, and I'm allowing others to challenge my assumptions, then I'm doing science no matter what somebody wants to call it. And, if I'm not defending my assumptions, and/or if I'm protecting my assumptions from being challenged, then what I'm doing is not science, no matter how much I want it to be.
So the fact that polls show that voters overwhelmingly disapprove of Biden's "handling" of the economy is just . . . coincidence. Jobs, jobs, jobs no longer matter. The stock market no longer exists. All that matters is the price of gas. And when the endless parade of Republicans appearing on Sunday shows to say "Biden is destroying hard-working American families with his radical economic policies," followed by no response, context, or pushback, that's perfectly unbiased.
We need a national advertising campaign reminding people that gas prices are set by Republicans.
This is silly. While Kevin may claim that it is common knowledge that job gains are bad because the Fed might raise rates, his claim that the media always reports job gains in a healthy economy as a scary situation is completely false.