REPORT: Lack of demand: Cable channels, Sunday shows leave economists on the sidelines in recovery debate

probably because by and large, like it or not,  these are political shows, with the emphasis on the political ramifications of the stimulus bill. Did you check out Cnbc or the Fox business channel?  That is where people more concerned with the economics of this bill would tune rather than the politics of it, as in the shows listed here, I would imagine.

Well, I personally would turn to a financial station for financial news, but any discussion of the economics needs more than a 5% discussion from an economist. (Personally, I found MM's definition generous -- Ben Stein, really? Reallyl?) When Terry Schaivo was the zombie darling of the airwaves, doctors were called in by political media forums quite frequently I remember. So, I'll bite. Who has an idea why no one's asking the economists?

Why not turn to Al Gore for the answers? After all, he knows nothing about science yet his opinions about science are golden.

Amity Shlaes is not an economist. She got her degree in English and calls herself and "economic historian"; I doubt a "medical historian would ever be consulted on how to do surgery.

I am a geologist, and no matter how much someone studied on their own, without getting a degree in geology they could not call themselves a geologist, no matter how much they knew about the history of geology. I am pretty sure the same standard applies to most professional fields where math and statistics are necessary. Could you update your article?

JOKE, Are you really RUSH LIMBAUGH in disguise? You are parroting his FAR RIGHT WINGbulls--t talking points perfectly.

No respectable gasbag political show wants facts when they have all these pontificating "star pundits" on.

There are plenty of them on CNBC. But they seem to be always arguing with eavch other, at lightning speeds most of the time.

While this is an impressive study, you didi not include the News Hour on PBS.

I know a lot of people don't watch it, but the News Hour on PBS is the best news show by far. They have a number of economists on all the time and had at least 4 on Tuesday.

Media Matters should encourage more people to watch the News Hour on PBS.

Can it get worse than Glenn Beck (at 33%) leading the way?

I appreciate Jockelay's list.  Blanket statement's like "economists say" or "virtually everyone agrees" are merely rhetorical flourishes, and we need to be reminded occasionally that they are not literally true.  Jockelay, you might get more respect if you were to state your source or tell us what campaign you are representing.

In my view history shows that sometimes spending works, and sometimes not.  Sometimes tax cuts work, and sometimes, as recently, we end up in a ditch that way.  Maybe this has something to do with why journalists don't call on more economists.  Like art and film critics, they earnestly offer their opinions, and nothing more.  

This is indeed scary. I'ver long maintained that the portion of our population that has no clue on economics is in bad need of a primer. To function as a nation based upon fact and knowledge it's important to distinguish the consensus of the learned from hired-gun fringe theory. This is critical to success and there is a high cost of failure.

Obamas recent speeches have been characterized as economics lessons and that is encouraging but it will take more than him. The startling statistic that 59% of Americans believe that the right approach to our current problems is tax cuts rather than jobs creation suggests that the problem will get worse before it gets better.

Ron Regan had John Kenneth Galbraith on his show and it was very enliightening. It included a discussion of what might happen if we do nothing. Whether one ends up agreeing or not it is pure idiocy not to listen to the best and brightest on these matters.

Shlaes has a B.A. in English.  How does that make her an economist?

Anybody who is unwilling or unable to understand that the Republicans controlled congress until 2006 and that Republican policies were implemented without restraint during W’s entire tenure is not worth listening to.  The idea that the blame should fall on Democrats for the huge deficit and disastrous financial policies is ludicrous and brings partisan politics to a new low.  If tax cuts for the wealthy would solve the crisis then we wouldn’t have a crisis to fix—they’ve been pushing tax cuts since W came into office.  We are facing a collapse and we need to fix the damage that the Republicans have done.  It is not rocket science to figure out that the Republicans controlled both Congress and the Presidency for six years, it is not rocket science to figure out that the Republicans did all that they could to prevent Democrats from passing legislation after 2006, and the fact that Boehner demanded and got, 100% Republican opposition to Obama’s stimulus package shows that they are not interested in actually solving any problems, they want to prevent Obama from succeeding.  They are actually putting their desire for power in front of the need to repair the economy and do not seem to care that they are causing horrible damage to the country they claim to love.

Wow, 13 Dollars a month, the lower and middle class should be really happy.  What happen to the thousands that your President Promised.  Why bring on a Economist when, they even know this is bad. 

This is a very important study, as my feeling is that the Media, Cable news/entertainment in particular is doing a disservice to us viewers as they spend far too much time editorializing. Not enough expert opinion. Problem is these media groups are soooo protective and resistant to any form of constructive criticism.

Who holds them accountable?

Ben Stein is not an economist and should not be considered such. He is at most an economic commentator but has not academic or real professional experience to be included as an "Economic Guest".

The problem illustrates a pervasive one in the "news" industry but one that is not necessarily due to an ideological agenda.  News TV rarely relies on experts to discuss a scientific/economic/technological issue.  Hence the rise of the "pundit" in the first place.  They MUST pretend to be experts on everything in order to maintain their camera face time and keep the celebrity status upon which the current "news" industry relies.

After all, why would anyone listen to Rush Limbaugh or Al Gore on issues of Global warming instead of, I don't know, a SCIENTIST!!!!

ANSWER: Scientists tend to be humble people who realizes that their expertise is in a very narrow field of study.  That's no good if you want to be a celebrity.  Pundits have no such humility.  You will also note two other distinct trends in the way pundits operate:

1)  They often demonstrate outright hostility to professors.  Professors are the favorite target of media pundits because they MUST discredit the qualified to justify their own celebrity status.

2)  They always inform the audience how smart and informed they are and how they must be intelligent if they are taking the time to listen to his/her radio show, or to read the book, etc... etc...  In this way, the celebrity pundit steps in for any actual intellectual inquiry and the audience is then reassured regarding their own anxieties about their own education, intelligence, worldliness, etc...  [Trivia games often operate this way as well... I must be smart because I can name all the people who starred in Beverly Hills 90210!!!  I didn't have to go to college!]

The process is absurd and depressing but hardly a surprising one.

I'm not sure what the point of the objection is.  Virtually all economists except for a few like Dean Baker at CEPR missed the dot com bubble, the housing bubble, and the Wall Street meltdown.

Given their abysmal track record, who cares what economists have to say?

He's also a big of tax cuts on capital gains and big business. During the Bush era he was frequently trotted out to say that not only were tax cuts good...they should have been bigger.

Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) predicted that none of his Senate colleagues would 'have the chance' to read the entire final version of the 1,071-page bill before it comes up for a final vote.

I am sure many of you think this is ok as well! Would it not be a good thing for your elected rep read the bill before voting? 

You're right, according to Wikipedia - Stein has an undergraduate major in econ. but no graduate training in it was mentioned, and he hasn't held a faculty position in econ. The fact that he's written books about econ. without this background proves MMFA's point, in a backhanded way - why are people willing to read books (or watch TV interviews) about econ. written (spoken) by people with inadequate training, when they could instead read books by (listen to) experts?

Looks like Beck has had the most economists (and highest percentage of economist guests) on his show! Isn't that something MM would like to see, and isn't that the jest of this study?