TV Economist watch
By John Amato Monday Mar 02, 2009 2:00pmI received this email today:
Shouldn't it be a rule during an economic crisis that they have at least one economist on every Sunday show?
The ONE day they leave out economists and instead bring in Karl Rove or Joe Scarborough, is the day they're discussing the budget, an issue that requires an economist to sort through the various accusations and republican talking points. Fox News did not even have a single Democrat on to debate the budget. Just 2 Republicans.
Another talks show Sunday without an economist on to help explain Obama's budget. What a shock. I wrote a piece on it during the stimulus package debate called:
Why aren't there hundreds of economists on my TV explaining the stimulus package?
Media Matters did a break down of the talk shows after I posed the question:
In the hour following President Obama's February 9 press conference -- during which he gave a brief address about the economic recovery legislation currently moving through Congress -- cable news programs featured guests and panelists to discuss Obama's remarks. But CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC did not bring on a single economist to discuss the plan. The absence of economists in the post-press conference discussion was consistent with the observation made by Crooksandliars.com founder John Amato in a February 4 article on The Huffington Post:
"I'm sure you've heard about the hundreds of economists that are either for or against President Obama's stimulus plan. My question to the media is: Where are they?" Indeed, a Media Matters for America review of the Sunday talk shows and 12 cable news programs from January 25 through February 8 found that during 139 1/2 hours of programming on Sunday mornings and weekday afternoons and evenings, of 460 total guest appearances in discussions about the economic recovery legislation and debate in Congress, only 25 were made by economists -- a mere 5 percent.
As President Obama's budget is discussed, I hope MM takes another survey on the networks. The media was asleep at the wheel during the run up to the Iraq war and are doing the same thing now.
Login or Register to post comments.
I don't know, have you actually paid any attention to how completely wrong most economists are about almost everything?
i am a STRONG supporter of disseminating more economic information for the public, and really debating economic ideologies and the such...
but, "at least one economist on every Sunday show", is fraught with problems. which economist? who gets to choose? knowing the corporate media if this were a rule then expect to see the likes of phil gramm, or francis fukuyama... or even the discredited robert rubin...
There should be economists on explaining the difference between the 'Stimulus' which is good, mostly…
The Keynesians will like it, though it is too small. The followers of Reagan and Friedman will hate it.
and the 'Bailout' which is completely bad.
The Bangsters love their bailout.
DO NOT FORGET. The 'Stimulus' as big as it is, is chump change compared to the bailout.
Here is the CNN scorecard on the bailout. $11.5 trillion committed and $2.2 trillion spent although I think that number is low.
Compared to $787 billion in the Stimulus much of which is tax cuts.
Obama's budget asks for another $750 billion for the Banksters.
Putting the entire 'Bailout' to over $12 trillion committed. I said at the begging they would $20 trillion for all the crap that was on the Banks phony balance sheets.
The Corporatist Fat Cat Wall Street Bankers are happy to intertwine the two and confuse the issues.
Here is my most recent comment which is two related reports. One is on the swindle du jour, ie AIG and number two on the larger view that the 'Bailout' is truly the Shock Doctrine writ large.
Economists, depending on which ones you listen to, are very good at analyzing what has gone before but not necessarily so good on predicting the future.
I listen to James Galbraith first of all, because he understands better than anyone else I can think of, that this is a Corporate State which has become a predator.
Obama has his work cut out for him.
because he believes his words will make things better...a la FDR.
Problem is, he doesn't know economics.
He doesn't, neither did FDR.
Unfortunately Obama has Rubin in the wings with Summers and Geithner on the wheel. They are the in crowd that got us here.
understood the difference between foxes and hens.
Maybe so.
FDR created the SEC and for the first chairman he nominated Joseph Kennedy who was the biggest fox running around.
There was a FOX in charge of a hen house if ever there was one.
But FDR and the country was much further into his debacle than Obama is into this one. Than we are right now.
They understood they were holding off revolution.
The breakthrough today on the nominal lower support levels indicate the markets do not have a bottom in sight.
This will get a whole lot worse before it gets better.
I will only cut Obama slack when he deserves it.
The 'stimulus' I like, though it is too small. The 'Bailouts' I detest because they don't protect the taxpayers.
Wish I had met you in 1967.
Here's my point: Geithner is not a fox.
He's a hen. He doesn't know what he's dealing with.
The foxes are in the henhouse.
And they are going to steal everything.
You may be right about Geithner.
1967 was when I graduated from High School and went to the University of Michigan.
I wish I knew then what I know now.
What I know now is that they are stealing EVERYTHING.
a great university.
Some great anti-war protests there during the 1960s.
Because Kennedy was a scheming bastard, and knew which loopholes had to be closed. When asked why he'd bring a crook on board, FDR replied, "Takes one to catch one."
Maybe that's what Obama's up to.
Here is Joseph Stiglitz interviewed by Amy Goodman.
Obama Has Confused Saving the Banks with Saving the Bankers
we'll be rid of the Republican party, for once and for all, by Q4 2013... - and it'll cost us pretty much everything we own.
I'm still trying to decide whether or not thats a good investment. on the one hand, damn, thats all the - like - money. on the other hand - hey - no more Billo...
Better than the alternative...
and it might not be a total wipe-out.
... either for the Iraq War or for the economic crises. IMHO, the media was and is simply presenting the case for policies desired by the exceedingly wealthy and powerful.
These are not "honest mistakes"; this is a propaganda machine.
Way to point out their hypocrisy, John. Once again.
The paid journalists like Armstrong Williams.
The budget of the Pentagon for setting opinions.
The history and control of the media.
As well as fake journalist Jeff Gannon.
AP Impact: Pentagon boosts spending on PR
WASHINGTON (AP) — As it fights two wars, the Pentagon is steadily and dramatically increasing money spent on winning what it calls "the human terrain" of world public opinion. In the process, concerns have been raised that this is spreading propaganda at home in violation of federal law.
An Associated Press investigation found that over the past five years, the money the military spends on winning hearts and minds at home and abroad has grown by 63 percent, to at least $4.7 billion this year
This year, the Pentagon will employ 27,000 people just for recruitment, advertising and public relations — almost as many as the total 30,000-person work force in the State Department.
... of "retired" generals who, in concert with the MSM,
rancontinue to run a PSYOP on their own country.As usual Orangutan: spot on.
It's fun to work together.
Here's a bit of history as well.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPlvdSQ6cAM
The cable channel news shows don't need an economist on because they have pre-declared all of it to be bad. They are their own "experts".
...except I don't think the problem is that the MSM are 'asleep at the wheel' as you said. I think they are criminal conspirators in the largest heist ever....
It's because none of them really care: they have plenty of money. They want to score political points. They don't care about average working people, not really. They are all "the enemy".
http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/23/...
AIG is making this financial crisis rather challenging. over the weekend they announce a $62 billion losses.
this insurance is a HUGE part of this downturn. there is NO confidence. it's interesting wallStreet/financial
institutions trying to blame as much as they can politicians/homeowners. AIG insured $500 billion in credit
with NO/little capital. specifically they insured billions worth of mortgage backed securities. trying to blame Obama is ridiculous. there is plenty of blame BUT don't forget henry Paulson/BUSH. the recession has been
going on for 15 months. economists are saying it's becoming more likely we will see a L curve vs. the U curve everyone is hoping for. i don't think people understand authorities/economists are still trying to define the entire problem/challenges. home prices are declining accelerated pace. there is chatter the actual
foreclosure inventory is larger than thought. consumers can't get CREDIT even with funds/FICO. there is less RISK taking NOW. there are less people working in mortgage companies. there are challenges getting true 1 mile radius values of comparison properties for loan approvals. this financial crisis and economic crisis is larger than Obama. the (R) are NOT helping in the least in my opinion.
See my most recent report on AIG.
Here
you mention an interesting point among many. that is that CDS being paid full face value. NO can do not sure why don't understand this. AIG is clearly hurting the global markets.
Geithner is paying the contracts at face value. The ISDA when they have auctions get market value.
This is a swindle.
When corporate power becomes a hazard to the nation, and the MSM becomes a major corporate power, we get a conflict of interest where NEWS is concerned. The nation needs an impartial news source!
It's the only way at this point. MSM producers have to completely re-tool their news programs if they ever hope to regain credibility.
You are right.
Except, they are NOT in the news business. They are Corporations and they are in the business of making profits pimping products to captive eyeballs.
They are there to tell you what you should THINK is important.
NOT, what IS important.
it's being said that european banks have 24 trillion dollars in toxic assests. dealing with AIG is difficult at best. would letting AIG go become systemic.......it's unknown to be sure. some how the potential systemic risk needs to be contained. that's what they are trying to figure out. the possible current strategy is to NOT let all the bad news out at one time. it's a slower bleed than everyone wants after 10 yrs. of spending
and living HUGE. people are complaining strategies are moving too slow some say too fast. again, the magnitude of this financial crisis is way too big for them to actually tell the public. it would be like yelling fire in the theatre. to much collateral loss/damage. what sucks were in a feeding cycle right now.
Why would more economists on TV do any good for anybody?
The vast majority of economists don't have a clue about anything. How many economists sounded the alarm about the doubling of the US national debt under Bush, the uncontrolled growth of unfunded future pension and entitlement liabilities (more than $50 Trillion at last count - and thes will start to become real, present liabilities in a couple of years when Boomers start retiring in large numbers), the overleveraging of the banking system, or the housing bubble? Almost none of them.
The very few economists who predicted the financial crisis, such as Nouriel Roubini of NYU in 2007, were pilloried by their colleagues. Now Roubini is a hero. When he predicted the crash, he was called an alarmist and an idiot. Who are the idiots now?
Private economists are shills for banks, insurers, brokers and think-tanks. Their conclusions are dictated by the interests of their employers. Government and academic economists have more freedom - at least in theory - but are often effectively censored, or self-censored by status-quo thinking, academic orthodoxy and ideological bias. Alan Greenspan is perhaps the best, most pathetic example.
They don't call it the dismal science for nothing. The big secret about all those "expert" economists is that none of them knows anything.
is its military.
Why else has the dollar rebounded?
Politicians are corrupted but not stupid.
The U.S. military is the trump card.
When they have economists on, they are the same hacks who swore the economy was good in August.
I trust none of them, save Paul Krugman.
Are you sure they didn't just have economy pundits of some kind on instead?
OK Lou Dobbs is hosting a pair of economists on his show today. Turns out these two are both authors, and they get their books up on the screen etc. I'm not sure how to classify these guys because all i know is they wrote books on the economy. Are they pundits or economists? I had someone who works as an economist for a living in mind for his show, not an author.
Is it finally time to use the dreaded D-word?
Even as there is talk of a depression, no one can define exactly what that is
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29469826/
from economists who do not have a Book in the pipeline and are NOT party affiliated!
But 5% is an outrage....wonder why the bobbleheads choose not to have intellectually vested people review the issue?
Maybe the media figures the American public isn't smart enough to understand an economist. Well...my pockets are empty. I understand and most people I know understand. The old people I know understand better than most economists.
Login or Register to post comments.