No, I’m not.
Has the economy been as bad as the media always reports? Will the media spin this news in a negative light? Answer quickly, as this just came out.
“Answer quickly, as this just came out”? What, we’re not supposed to take time to think about it? When you get a point of anamalous data that goes agains a trend, of COURSE you should evaluate it.
That said, it’s currently the top story at the New York Times, Washington Post, and CNN websites. Not exactly a case of the liberal media downplaying a news story.
I’m no economist; I’ll be interested in what economists say about how this figures into what’s been going on for the past couple years.
Daniel
And Beagle, look at comments from the New York Times story:
There aren’t animated graphics of dancing stockbrokers on the website, but I can hardly imagine the story having a more positive tone.
Looks like your original assumption was right.
Daniel
INAE, nor am I particlarly familliar w/ this issue, but, the snippet you provided, “fastest pace in more than 19 years” sounds as if it’s one of those statistical percentage things. If things go from one to two, there’s a 100% increase, if things go from 100 to 150 there’s only a 50% increase. “Fastest pace” certainly seems like it needs more evaluation.
Yep, front page news on several sites. I"m not sure if they’re all Liberal though.
In my defense: I put “liberal” in quotes with a question mark. All I would say is that most journalists in the major media* are registered Democrats. If they can overcome whatever partisan feelings they may have and be good journalists, let me be the first to congratulate them. If I am wrong about my guess, I’m glad.
Right-wingers that criticized Clinton for every military move he made as “wagging the dog” pissed me off also. OTOH, considering 9/11, I feel that the media has been poor-mouthing “Bush’s” economy more than it should.
The financial channels are the only place to get economic news at higher than a middle school level. Maybe that is the real problem?
*With Fox, talk radio, and the net this whole “liberal media” thing is beginning to come down to laziness more than actual bias. You can find any bias of your choice in reality.
Wow, you’re denouncing someone for bias before they’ve even said anything. Eager young pup, ain’tcha?
So far, I think this is the only debatable point in this thread. Although I don’t have cites handy, I’ve seen stuff stating that 9/11’s impact on the economy has actually been greatly exaggerated. Shall we rescue this thread by debating this point instead?
Daniel
Anyone who believes in the “liberal media” myth should be mocked. 
Anyone who denys the media is liberal should be mocked. 
Anyone who mis-spells the word denies should be mocked also, of course.
D’oh!
What Liberal Media? The Truth about Bias and the News by Eric Alterman. Damn good read, so I’m told (haven’t got to it yet), but I assume the people ringing Beagle’s bell and yours have some good de-debunking available to cite?
I thought my point about the economy not being as bad as reported for quite a while is debatable.
How can you even calculate the costs of 9/11? It wrecked the tourism industry in Orlando for quite a while. I don’t think there is any way to calculate the damage from 9/11. I am sure it reaches into the many billions of dollars. The airline industry is just scratching the surface.
It also had some positive economic effects, at least as measured by GDP, by causing a huge binge in government and private spending on defense and homeland security. So, you have to throw that into the mix.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by DanielWithrow *
**And Beagle, look at comments from the New York Times story:
Not only that, but the NY Times sent me a “news alert” telling me about this article. These news alerts are something you can get if you sign up for them at their website and I would say they send out an average of about 1 per week…So, roughly speaking, they are prioritizing this story at least as the top story of the week.
I know this data just came out, but doesn’t this estimate get revised in about 30-60 days? What is the typical revision, down or up?
Sorry about the last post. No hijack intended.
Hypothetical questions:
If the negative state of the economy has been exaggerated in the media then:
-a negative spin on this GDP data would be expected. (Y/N)
-a positive spin on this GDP data would be…?
If the negative state of the economy has not been exaggerated in the media then:
-a negative spin on this GDP data would be…? (pessimistic? cautious?)
-a positive spin on this GDP data would be expected. (Y/N)
If I could fill in the unknowns here, I think I might have a better sense of how to interpret the apparent exuberance over this report.
From my perspective, if anything the media have been underplaying the miserable economy. Which is probably a good thing, since a lot of the economy has to do with perception and confidence, by both business leaders and consumers. The more doom and gloom you hear, the longer the economy is probably going to take to recover. As far as a “liberal media” bias, it’s probably true that most journalists tend to be liberal. It’s probably also true that most economic reporters and people in decision making positions in the media (editors, op ed columnists) tend to be conservative, at least from a fiscal POV. So who knows. Maybe they’ll say the economy is good but (correctly IMO) not credit the President.
As for the airline industry hurting, yeah, 9/11 killed them, but they were already doing pretty badly prior to 9/11, as many companies were cutting back on travel spending and investing in remote groupware technologies. Now that they Euro is strong perhaps tourism should improve in Florida, a nice vacation destination for Europeans when the dollar is weak. But wait, the Governor’s brother has pissed off most of the Europeans. They might go somewhere else instead. And we’ll see whether oil prices stabilise or if the prices continue to creep up. That affects the airlines a lot (as well as the incredibly high “9/11 taxes” on air travel), as well as the rest of the transport and manufacturing industries.
ShibbOleth: Can you clarify, with numbers and other economic data, what is “miserable” about the economy?
Some economists were discussing this on the boob tube last night. An economist working in New York involved with Wall Street said it was great. An economist in Washington said there was no corresponding increase in job growth so the statistic doesn’t mean much.
The economy is a continuously evolving system. What statistics mean is not constant. It could be argued that television doesn’t produce anything, it just waste people’s time. Keynes died in 1946. He didn’t know anything about television.
Economists are technological morons. What do they say about depreciation of computers?
Dal Timgar