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.