About us Login Get email updates
County Fair
Print

What if the press did context?

February 13, 2009 4:54 pm ET by Eric Boehlert

Imagine how much more illuminating the 'debate' over the stimulus package would be if the press ever bothered to put the partisan sniping in context. Here's one example.

The press today continues to focus on the GOP doomsday scenarios about what Obama's economic initiative will mean to America and how it's going to gut the economy. How it will put America on the road to "financial disaster," as Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL) declared last weekend.  And of course, his dire rhetoric generated headlines. (“We’re taking an enormous risk -- an enormous risk -- with other people’s money,” added Sen. Mitch McConnell this week.)

The press takes these swipes very seriously, in part because the press always treats GOP rhetoric about the economy and finances seriously. Why? Because Republicans know economics. Everybody inside the Beltway understands that CW.

Just like the GOP knew economics back in 1993 when the new Democratic president Bill Clinton struggled to get his centerpiece economic legislation passed. Back then the GOP was sure the bill was a recipe for disaster. At the time Newt Gingrich announced "The tax increase will kill jobs and lead to a recession, and the recession will force people off of work and onto unemployment and will actually increase the deficit." He was positive a recession would ruin America's economy within the "next year," or even "over the next 60 days." 

And Newt wasn't alone. The whole GOP crew was in Chicken Little mode and the press back then, just like today, made sure to record and amplify every dire warning: "A recipe for economic disaster," warned Phil Crane of Illinois. "It is going to lead to a Clintastrophy, an economic Clintastrophy," added Indiana's Dan Burton. 

That rhetoric, which clearly failed to foresee the 1990's decade worth of prosperity under Clinton, is eerily similar to the GOP rhetoric today. But the press can't, or doesn't want to, note the connection. Instead, the media opt for context-free coverage of the stimulus 'debate.' 

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by mk3872 (February 13, 2009 6:18 pm ET)
         

      And yet, lo & behold, there is Newt back again. No longer in office, yet on FNC every single night spouting his expertise on the economy!!

      Report Abuse
    • Author by steeve (February 13, 2009 6:29 pm ET)
         
      "That rhetoric, which clearly failed to foresee the 1990's decade worth of prosperity under Clinton, is eerily similar to the GOP rhetoric today." -- unless Obama raises taxes on the rich, we won't get Clinton's boom this time.

      The stimulus won't make things any worse. But Krugman knows it's too small and has too much stupid in it.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by mattcable250650 (February 13, 2009 10:27 pm ET)
         
      In Fox's desperation to "prove" that the media is biased in favor of our President, they called attention to a report that women are having erotic dreams about Obama. Does this prove bias on the part of the media? No, because the same report was made about Bill Clinton during his presidency. I'm not sure that making that report proves much of anything about the media. 
      Report Abuse
      • Author by carlileb5935 (February 14, 2009 12:32 am ET)
           

        I'm not sure that making that report proves much of anything about the media.

        Of course it does. It proves they're d***s

        Report Abuse
    • Author by paul8616 (February 13, 2009 11:07 pm ET)
         
      Hmm. Consider for a moment some more context: The dot-com and housing bubbles in the 90s *might* have been a result of Clinton stimulus package, but really those two bubbles illustrate what we're facing again: If your economic system isn't actually based on reality, you end up suffering in one way or another.

      Finance put all their chips on the housing bubble. Didn't work. Here we are. We just gave them about 700B, with basically no strings attached. Automakers didn't fare so well, because they make things that are, you know.... REAL. And now the Republicans are bickering over whether government spending on infrastructure is, you know... REAL or not.

      The basic problem is a lack of reality.

      Meanwhile, rewind to the financial bailout, with Shelby saying this:
      I am concerned that Treasury’s proposal is neither workable nor comprehensive, despite its enormous price tag,” Shelby said in a statement Monday. “In my judgment, it would be foolish to waste massive sums of taxpayer funds testing an idea that has been hastily crafted, and may actually cause the government to revert to an inadequate strategy of ad hoc bailouts.”

      “Given that markets have recently taken confidence in the prospect of government involvement, I believe Congress must immediately undertake a comprehensive, public examination of the problem and alternative solutions rather than swiftly pass the current plan with minimal changes or discussion. We owe the American taxpayer no less.”
      That looks about right. There's probably more kabuki involved than that simple statement, too. Of course, that doesn't make him right about the current plan. However, the criticism here is that the press doesn't do context. So find some context, MMA.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by carlileb5935 (February 14, 2009 12:30 am ET)
         

      Instead, the media opt for context-free coverage of the stimulus 'debate.'

      No, there's a context all right. It's called the Republicans are our bosses. 

      Report Abuse
    • Author by foghornleghorn (February 14, 2009 2:10 pm ET)
         
      The Republicans continue to spout doom and gloom.  I'm thankful they are almost irrelevant.  Kind of like a circus side show.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by mlstotts (February 14, 2009 2:53 pm ET)
         
      Context, history, call it what you will - most publisher's pets, I mean editors,  labeled good contextual journalism with dirty words like analysis, editorial or bias and cut it for "space considerations." How many journalistic conventions are based on the dying paid print advertising model which only supported X column inches of news per Y column inches of advertising? Wouldn't it be great if most news beats could be divided in to "breaking news" and "news context."?
      Report Abuse