In stories on spending freeze, major print outlets left out an important voice: economists
Reporting that President Obama would propose a three-year freeze on some domestic spending, many major print outlets did not quote a single economist about the effect that such a freeze could have on the U.S. economy. The Wall Street Journal cited an American Enterprise Institute economist who called the reported plan a "step in the right direction," but no other economists, although economists including Paul Krugman and Mark Thoma have criticized the policy.
Print outlets omit economists' views of reported proposal to freeze some spending
Stories from major outlets omit perspective from any economists. In January 26 articles, The New York Times, The Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, USA Today, the Associated Press and Politico did not quote an economist to discuss the economic effects of a spending freeze Obama will reportedly propose. These outlets also did not indicate that they had contacted any economists. The Washington Post cited the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget as a source to calculate discretionary spending as a percentage of gross domestic product; the Los Angeles Times cited Vice President Joe Biden's chief economic adviser, Jared Bernstein, discussing the definition of the middle class. Neither of those publications cited any economists to discuss whether a spending freeze would be good economic policy.
WSJ quotes only AEI economist in support of immediate deficit reduction. In its article, The Wall Street Journal did quote economist John Makin, of "the conservative American Enterprise Institute":
John Makin, an economist at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, called the effort "certainly a step in the right direction." He said the amount saved isn't large, but noted that he preferred this approach over raising taxes. "I'm not going to belittle it because it's not a big cut in spending." [1/26/10]
The Journal did not quote any economist offering an opposing point of view.
Baker notes Wash. Post story didn't include economist. Dean Baker, the co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, noted in an American Prospect blog post that The Washington Post article about the freeze "found no room for any political figure or economist to provide an alternative perspective on the deficit." From his January 26 post:
Remarkably, the piece never once mentions the recession in its discussion of the deficit, even though it is the major reason it has grown to "mammoth" proportions. However, the article did give a spokesperson for House Minority Leader John Boehner the opportunity to mock the proposal for a spending freeze: "given Washington Democrats' unprecedented spending binge, this is like announcing you're going on a diet after winning a pie-eating contest." The piece found no room for any political figure or economist to provide an alternative perspective on the deficit. [1/26/10]
Krugman points to negative effects of a spending freeze. On his New York Times blog, Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman stated that a spending freeze was "appalling on every level." Krugman added:
It's bad economics, depressing demand when the economy is still suffering from mass unemployment. [1/26/10]
Thoma: "This is pretty disappointing." In a January 25 blog post, Mark Thoma, an economist at the University of Oregon, stated, "This is pretty disappointing. The long-term budget problem is due to primarily one thing, rising health care costs. Everything else is dwarfed by that problem. If we solve the health care cost problem, the rest is easy. If we don't solve it the rest won't matter."
Media Matters study found economists' views were neglected during stimulus debate
Economists made only 6 percent of appearances on Sunday talk shows, cable news. A Media Matters review of the Sunday talk shows and 12 cable news programs from January 25, 2009, through February 15, 2009, found that during 203 hours of programming on Sunday mornings and weekday afternoons and evenings, only 41 of 722 total guest appearances in discussions about the economic recovery legislation and debate in Congress, were made by economists -- a mere 6 percent. The review is an update of a Media Matters study released February 11, 2009, that found that from January 25, 2009, through February 8, 2009, only 5 percent of the total guest appearances that included discussions of the recovery plan were made by economists. As Media Matters has extensively documented, media coverage of the plan was also marred by conservative falsehoods and misinformation.
Well, it appears the right has them and a few more obscure bloggers, and the left has "The New York Times, The Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, USA Today, the Associated Press and Politico", just to name a few who dared not offer another viewpoint to President Obamas. I mean according to MMfA.
Of course, that makes sense. :/
The evidence that the media has a liberal bias comes from the dearth of documented evidence of liberal media bias.
This isn't rocket science. MMFA pointed out some mainstream media outlets that didn't allow input from economists. MMFA didn't ever label those outlets as ones belonging to the left. What a tool you continue to be.
I swear you post nothing but nonsense. I even question whether you believe the silliness of what you put up here. No, Paul Krugman is a not on the left, nor is Dean Baker. Duh. Why don't do a little simple research before you post? Or is looking like an abject fool what you're out to do? Well girl, you did it.
You're the one who can't keep up, and can't keep what you said in context.
All it shows is that you don't actually have much of a point to posting here besides trying to derail topics if you can't even remember your own comments in context!!! The flaw is in YOUR failings, not mine!
The poster who looks like an abject fool would be you.
Top that off with your baseless and bogus assertion that one can identify liberal media bias because of the postings by MMFA. But we can't, and no one tries to. The way we can DENY that there's a liberal media bias is by the lack of evidence of that, NOT by the evidence that there is sometimes misinformation from the right.
And again, MMFA never SAYS that the misinformation that benefits the right is evidence of bias anyway. They don't allege intent!!!
You were wrong all around. You're the fool and the one caught exposing your foolishness here, not me.
Bush isn't responsible for increasing government spending and entering expensive wars all the while decreasing taxes to gain more support from citizens. That was definitely the fault of others, no one is responsible for their own actions.
Economists generally agree, investment is the only way out of recession, especially with the spectre of stagflation lurking. If inflation was a problem we would see more in the way of austerity measures, which appears to be what the right wing favors. Do you favor austerity measures Righton?
Aw, dang. Who signed it into law again?
It's not a case of the CBO being untrustworthy...it's a case of them being impotent in making valid predictions...and it's not their fault.
The reason why the CBO's long term projections are meaningless in predicting the budget outcomes? Easy...congress will and always has changed the rules after a bill is passed...making the CBO numbers useless.
Somehow RightON thinks that this shows that the liberal media is in the tank for Obama? How does that calculus work? A spending freeze is a rightwing desire, and several media outlets didn't ask any economists what they'd think about this economic measure, and somehow he twists it around to mean 180 degrees opposite what it actually means?
What a tool he is.