PDA

View Full Version : Did TV news miss point in covering stimulus plan?



LongShot
02-23-2009, 09:39 PM
Did TV news miss point in covering stimulus plan?
By DAVID BAUDER, AP Television Writer David Bauder.
Mon Feb 23, 12:00 am ET

NEW YORK – There were plenty of familiar faces on-screen during TV coverage of President Barack Obama's economic stimulus plan, people like James Carville, Laura Ingraham, Karl Rove, Sen. Lindsey Graham, Joe Trippi and **** Morris.

What it lacked, some critics suggest, were people with real expertise in what the $787 billion plan will mean for the economy and for communities and individuals. In short, it was treated like just another political battle.

Of the 681 people who appeared as guests on a dozen cable news and four network Sunday morning talk shows in the three weeks that ended last Sunday, only 41, or 6 percent, were economists, said the liberal media watchdog Media Matters for America.

That count alone indicates a lack of effort in tracking down what was most important about the story, said Erikka Knuti, the organization's spokeswoman.

"Hearing whether or not this package is going to work is more important than who has the snappiest quip," she said.

Media Matters didn't keep track of interview subjects on the most-watched newscasts, the broadcast network evening programs, but the conservative Media Research Center did. About 13 percent of the people interviewed on economic recovery between Obama's election and final passage of the bill were economists, the group said.

That's almost one per substantial story, but Dan Gainor, vice president of the MRC's Business & Media Institute, said that ratio was "appalling."

Piling on the criticism, the Center for Economic and Policy Research said the media had "badly failed" to inform the public about what the stimulus plan means. The group said news organizations also didn't keep things in perspective, focusing on criticisms of the bill that were a very small part of the pricetag.

To a certain extent, networks could be accused of unimaginative bookings, going to people they know very well. Media Matters counted 19 separate appearances by CNN financial correspondent Ali Velshi during the three weeks. The three people who opined most about the bill on Fox News Channel were regulars Morris, Rove and Juan Williams, the group said.

Even some of the economists used were familiar to viewers, like Web site maven Arianna Huffington, former game show host Ben Stein and Paul Krugman, columnist for The New York Times.

Two shows the group monitored, hosted by CNN's Anderson Cooper and Campbell Brown, had no economists during the three-week period. By far, the most economists on any show (10) were on Fox's new Glenn Beck show.

Ian Cameron, executive producer of ABC's Sunday morning "This Week," said the trend had less to do with unimaginative bookings than 24-hour cable's need to draw contrast and promote verbal battles.

"On this debate, the sharpest contrast was in Washington," Cameron said. "To some degree, there was more debate on this plan inside Washington than there was outside of Washington."

Krugman has recently become a regular panelist on "This Week," and New York University economist Nouriel Roubini was also booked for the Feb. 22 show.

Cameron and Bob Schieffer, CBS News chief Washington correspondent, said that while the criticism of not having enough economists on screen to talk about this bill may have some validity, it was still necessary to report on the political battle surrounding it. If that battle hadn't been settled, there would be no stimulus bill to talk about.

"Maybe we should be talking to more economists," Schieffer said. "I've been a reporter now for 52 years, covered everything from hubcap thieves to arms control negotiations, and I generally have an opinion on whether the government is doing the right or wrong thing. This thing is so complicated that I'm not sure what is the right or wrong thing."

The Media Research Center, in its examination of the evening news programs, believes that the news organizations are paying far more attention to economists who support Obama's policies. The libertarian-leaning Cato Institute recently paid for a newspaper ad listing dozens of economist who opposed the bill.

Media Matters, which would seemingly have the most hopes invested in seeing pro-stimulus economists scheduled, said its count shows them with a slighter advantage.

Whoever is doing the talking, Schieffer just hopes they know what they're talking about.

"We're all feeling our way in this thing," he said. "What scares me is that people in Washington are doing the same thing."



Source........ (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090223/ap_on_en_tv/ap_on_tv_stimululating_stimulus)

Walter Sobchak
02-23-2009, 10:39 PM
The Media Research Center, in its examination of the evening news programs, believes that the news organizations are paying far more attention to economists who support Obama's policies. The libertarian-leaning Cato Institute recently paid for a newspaper ad listing dozens of economist who opposed the bill.

This is sooooooo shocking! :cantbeli:

Invisigoth
02-24-2009, 07:12 AM
You mean professional bull****ters like this guy?

(I had to lol)

http://www.dailykostv.com/v/000797.html

Mackie
02-24-2009, 07:44 AM
If I am right a majority of the money will go to the states, preventing bankruptcy which seems to be a Rep/Dem intention. Also the Reps wanted lower taxes for higher incomes.(which will end in Swiss accounts.) Dems are for social benefits. (Which will be a small stimulus effect)
Only 100bn are planned for infrastructure. Seems nothing compared the countries scale.

There's no doubt that this plan won't prevent the recession or bring economical growth. It's a buffer nothing more. Like every government in the world the USA have to wait and react until the consequences of the crisis are known.
The package is overrated while the most important things of Obamas government will be reforms.


Personally I hate Obamas Roosevelt politics. It's 2009 and Roosevelts stimulus plan isn't complete cos Americans still siting on the debts. And who gets the interests? China and Saudi Arabia?
Same here. 40bn Euro every year paying interests.

commanding
02-24-2009, 08:43 AM
Bob Schieffer is just about as liberal as James Carville. So to verify if Howdy Doody and Buffalo Bob are doing a great job, they ask the "Peanut Gallery" right?
(unless you were alive & alert in the early 50s you won't know what that is....)

Walter Sobchak
02-24-2009, 10:16 AM
If I am right a majority of the money will go to the states, preventing bankruptcy which seems to be a Rep/Dem intention.

No. Plus, much of that which does go to states has strings attached that will cause, in many cases, for states to adopt permanent plans and tax increases which will remain after the federal money is gone. But, since this was done in secrecy, the "experts" are still struggling with the ambiguously worded (some of it written in by hand in the original bill) law.



Also the Reps wanted lower taxes for higher incomes.(which will end in Swiss accounts.) Dems are for social benefits. (Which will be a small stimulus effect)

The Republicans proposal was to cut the two lowest marginal tax brackets - 10% and 15% - by 5%. Hardly the stuff Credite Suisse handles. However, it would have provided immediate, real, meaningful tax relief to those "working poor" the Democrats purport to love. As it is, they will see about 4-6 dollars a week, and middle income workers about 10-13 dollars a week! (Beware, those genrous tax cuts run June-December and drop in January!)

They also favored lowering the world's highest capital gains taxes and the world's second-highest corporate taxes in order to stimulate investment and employment. Companies create jobs and wealth; Government does not.

Social "benefits" that are now law effectively dismantle Bill Clinton's 1996 Welfare Reform.


Only 100bn are planned for infrastructure. Seems nothing compared the countries scale.

There's no doubt that this plan won't prevent the recession or bring economical growth. It's a buffer nothing more. Like every government in the world the USA have to wait and react until the consequences of the crisis are known. The package is overrated while the most important things of Obamas government will be reforms.


Personally I hate Obamas Roosevelt politics. It's 2009 and Roosevelt's stimulus plan isn't complete cos Americans still sitting on the debts. And who gets the interests? China and Saudi Arabia?
Same here. 40bn Euro every year paying interests.

Borrowing money to pay for pet projects does nothing but impoverish the future generations. Even the House of Representatives own Congressional Budget Office has said that it will do nothing but hurt growth in the future and, some economists say that it might harm recovery when it begins.

In my opinion, the Democrats need a hurtful recession. They need people to be suffering and poor. They need misery and racial tension. Through this, they become the party that "cares" and helps the downtrodden. In reality, they give people a feeling that only the government can help and only offer a subsistence. That, in turn, keeps people poor and dependent... and voting for them. It's insidious.

Eye
02-24-2009, 10:31 AM
In my opinion, the Democrats need a hurtful recession. They need people to be suffering and poor. They need misery and racial tension. Through this, they become the party that "cares" and helps the downtrodden. In reality, they give people a feeling that only the government can help and only offer a subsistence. That, in turn, keeps people poor and dependent... and voting for them. It's insidious.
I can see that Democrats breed their own electorate just in the same way like socialistic parties here...