RepChatter #54

Is there a direct correlation between media and the downturn of the economy? Steve and Ted discuss how the media is covering this issue, who’s to blame, and what should be done to fix the problem.

To play the show now, click the blue arrow icon below. To save to iTunes or other Mp3 software, right click the link and "save target as."

TOTAL LENGTH: 20:35 Download Economy.mp3

Comments

[Gene]

That said, we need some smart editorial guidance in heds. It is absolutely true that oil's fall for a second straight day is "surprising." The world produces 85 billion barrels of oil a day but consumes 86 billion, and refinery capacity hasn't climbed in decades. So if you only have time to read the heds, that little "editorializing" is a handy guide for you. It enriches your understanding.

Let's all stop blaming media for observing our world.

[Steve]

I respectfully disagree. The headline should have read: "Oil drops for a second day." Where's the objectivity, Gene? And, I do wish you could have contributed to the conversation. Negative hedders scare consumers who, in turn, stuff their cash in mattresses instead of spending it and driving the economy. Self-fulfilling prophesy.

[Gene]

Respectfully: BS. The media's job isn't to spur retail sales. And if Joe Sixpack wasn't already worried about oil then he's not gonna be moved by a single hed.

[Steve]

Respectfully BS right back at you. Joe Sixpack is swayed by 24 x 7 negative news coverage. You'd feel differently if you owned a resort hotel and just watched yet another doom-and-gloom prognosticator wax poetic on the coming Depression.

[Matt]

I'm sure some consumers are swayed by headlines. But you know what? They should be. Americans are great consumers, but horrible savers. Maybe the media should be hinting that Americans need to drive less, recycle more and save for tomorrow.

Media are accurately reporting the current economic climate. If former Fed chair Greenspan told a conference today that the economy would grow 5% in 2009, it would be headline news around the world.

On the other hand, if consumer behavior is driven by the news, then why are two-thirds of Americans overweight? We certainly don't see headlines screaming "More eating leads to happiness." (We have advertising to do that for us.)

[Gene]

A resort hotel isn't necessarily a good investment. And it isn't necessarily tied to baseline consumer economic trends.

Regardless: The economy has problems. Shall we just report around them?

[Steve]

On the contrary. Report objective facts. Leave the editorializing to the back pages.

[Gene]

There's a difference between editorial judgment and editorializing. The former belongs in the news pages. And newspapers that don't deploy it will cease to exist.

[Steve]

Eating and spending are two dissimilar consumer behaviors, Matt (think need vs want).

[Steve]

Eating and spending are two dissimilar consumer behaviors, Matt (think need vs want).

[Gene]

Eating to excess and impulse buying are similar behaviors. Matt's right.

[Steve]

I beg to differ, Gene. Spending money on essentials (ie gas to get one to and from work) is not the same impulse as ordering an extra quarter-pounder with cheese and large fries. As Ed would say, "It's apples and oranges." You and Matt are wrong.

And I'm talking about the media in general, not just newspapers. Editorializing has become the norm, not the exception. And, i believe it's driven by the 24x7 news cycle and an increasingly jaded and vitriolic media.

[Matt]

Here's the point I was trying to make: You suggest that news coverage significantly influences consumer behavior. I beg to differ. Prime example: For decades now, the media have reported (accurately) on the links between obesity and heart disease, diabetes and a host of other medical and social problems. I challenge you to find one positive story on obesity.

One would think that Americans would take heed and reduce calorie consumption. But the opposite has occurred. Between 1962 and 2000, the number of obese Americans grew from 13% to 31% of the population.

WRT the economy, I'm sure some consumers change their spending/saving patterns based on media coverage, but you can't blame the messenger for the reality of today's tectonic shifts in the financial and energy markets.

[Gene]

Acknowledgment of your sparring partner's good points is perhaps not a master strategy for debating, but it is how I care to do business. Particularly when doing so doesn't undermine my argument.

To wit: It is absolutely true that the 24X7 cycle has driven news organizations of all stripes to become more analytical.

It is not true that journalists have become more jaded or vitriolic: You yourself recall the Menckens ands the Winchells, and decades before them we had some of the most consistently biased and subjective reporting ever. Anyone remember William Randolph Hearst? Or at least "Citizen Kane?" And before that NY papers were even worse.

Lest anyone try to insert Fox into this argument, please let's just dispense with that right now: Fox is not a news organization. It has elements of a news organization, but it is equally a marketing apparatus.

To the larger and more important point: Editorial judgment is both necessary and warranted. And to the extent that heds have to drive readership, a little signpost isn't a bad thing.

Let's go back to our original example. Before the "surprisingly" hed, is there anyone among us who believed oil was, you know, cheap? Hell no. So calling a little extra attention to the fact that there's a break in the trend is completely reasonable. The bigger problem is deeming developments as trends before they truly are (the old "two it's a trend" technique).

I'd like to see the media do a better job explaining "speculation" in oil and other commodities. (Some good work in WSJ on this.) I'd like to see the media do a better job pointing out -- with editorial judgment in spades -- that lawmakers only care about this issue come election time. But I don't fault a hedline writer for having the good sense to dek out a hed space with a little judgment call.