Greenspan, on CNBC: U.S. in recession

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080408/bs_nm/usa_economy_greenspan_dc


sometimes the truth hurts, greenspan, and trying to defend your part in it, is irrational.

quote:

That's not a bias, that's a job description. And it only seems weird to you because of your expectations that he should be doing something different. Based on what?

Actually he made it quite clear that it was his decision to do just what he did.

Based on... journalistic integrity. Believe it or not, journalists have a code of ethics that they're supposed to adhere to. I would argue that objectivity first is thrown right out the window and secondly the reporter is committing the sin of stereotyping by finding the worst shithole possible to report from. Thirdly, just the idea smacks of advocacy reporting to me. I would have to go back now and read all of his transcripts to see if he presented balanced reports.

The problem, in general, is always making sure that the public's right to know (the truth) is satisfied. Which means that all sides of stories be reported accurately (with attribution and in context).

quote:

Based on... journalistic integrity.

I still fail to see the lack of journalistic integrity that stems from reporting from a bad place about the conditions, especially since he has told you that he is doing exactly that. Does news from horrible places not deserve to be shared for some reason? During Katrina, should reporters have all rushed to Daytona Beach? Was reporting from the flooded city, with thousands in the Superdome and bodies floating in the water, somehow unethical to you?

If you only want nice stories, there are other programs you can watch. Perhaps Touched By an Angel is in reruns?

quote:

All the news channels are the same; you can watch & read 10000 different sources with 10000 of points of view on the same subject or watch just one & save yourself some time. Watching none would pretty much have the same effect. “Bonafide economic slow down” is caused by actions & choices made years ago, it’s an inevitable part of the way current system works, there is not much that can be done here unfortunately. Unemployment is caused by another great set of actions & choices that we still keep on believing in IMO. I’ve spent 4 years in college studying economy and I hated it & all our professors used to hate me. Maybe I’m futuristic or perfectionist, in either case I’m not trying to prove you are wrong. I’m not a fortune teller, nether you are I believe. I understand my point of view is not popular, but I think we need to start solving problems at the core & not let it happen & then try to bandaid it with “stimulus package”, which is not going to help.

This was one of the most telling statements I've ever read in a forum. I disagree with this on so many levels but I'll keep it short.

We live in a democracy. It might be hard to change things in the short term but over the long term the will of the American people pretty much gets exercised. The only way a democracy can work is for the citizens to have an understanding of the issues and choices that they must deal with at any given time. By it's very nature, a democracy needs informed citizens. Dictatorships rely on censorship and ignorance, democracies rely on the free flow of information and participants who know what's going on.

To say that all media is the same just blows my mind - except that it's coming from someone who intentionally doesn't watch, listen to, or read any news. I guess if you never pay attention to the vast media in this country it would all seem the same. I can assure you, however, that it is not all the same. There is an incredible diversity in quality and viewpoint.

Like everything else we deal with today the mortgage crisis and the economic slowdown are complicated. Sort of like the Iraq war and the health care problem. There's no simple answer. So the only way we are going to work through these problems is to learn as much as we can about them and then advise our elected representatives to make wise choices.

I hope you don't vote, nbarts. Please, by all means, leave this important responsibility to those of us who spend the time to have a reasonably good understanding of the problems we face as a country. You sound proud of your ignorance, which is an incredible concept to me, but whatever, dude. Just don't give us advise on the scope and solution to current problems like our economic downturn. I spend a lot of time listening to NPR, watching The News Hour and news documentaries, reading our local newspaper, and reading Newseek so that I can be an informed participant in our country's affairs. It's OK, you can stay in your cave and complain about the economy. We'll take care of running the country for you.

quote:

...especially since he has told you that he is doing exactly that.

After the fact.

It's not just the worst place, he also purposely looked for the worst story as well. I'm not opposed to that as long as it's not advocacy journalism (unless that's the clear intent from the start - the guy works for an aid agency or an NGO, etc.) If he's in the role of a crusader, that's fine, as long as he clearly identifies that in his pieces. If a reporter's main function in life is to report the worst of the worst, to show how shitty the world is, etc., then he/she should be working for a pressure group of some sort, not as an objective agent of the public - not as a reporter with access to mainstream news. It violates the trust of the reader. Reporter John Doe is trusted to present the most complete and accurate (as humanly possible) public record he can yet, he starts an assignment with the preconceived notion that he must find the most miserable of the miserable as a backdrop or as sourcing, etc. It's just plain wrong. Go where the story leads you, don't become part of the story. If the story leads to a miserable place, so be it - that's the way it's supposed to work. It's still shocking to me that a reporter said this out loud. Obviously this is someone who also has a lot of lattitude, has no real assignment editor, etc., and was allowed to do whatever he wanted. Sounds to me that he was essentially allowed to create stories.

The Katrina reporting is the perfect opportunity for textbook journalism to report both the horror of the event (the worst places and stories) and then maybe the heroic efforts by the National Guard and others for example on the other side. This is sort of macro enterprise journalism though - so maybe a newspaper for example builds packages from the reporting of several different reporters to build the whole.

quote:

Was reporting from the flooded city, with thousands in the Superdome and bodies floating in the water, somehow unethical to you?

You're confusing some things, obviously.

Actually, there has been some very good reporting that came out of New Orleans. The tragedy of it - including floating bodies; the underlying 40 years of state and local government corruption; the extreme poverty and crime; the scam of a levy; a congressman with bundles of money in his freezer using the military as his personal guards; a dysfunctional mayor; environmental effects of the storm; host states helping the displaced; OSHA innadequacies; and many, many stories of heroism by National Guardsmen who tirelessly plucked people off of rooftops and just regular volunteers with boats pulling people from the water. So... very good on-scene reporting and enterprise journalism both - reactionary and investigative.

Very different things, my friend.

-A

quote:

We live in a democracy.

Representative Republic.

Switzerland is a democracy - one person, one vote For some reason I was thinking it was Sweden

quote:

There is an incredible diversity in quality and viewpoint.

This is fine in the realm of commentary and opinion (as it relates to "media") however it shouldn't be with regard to hard news. News should be hard fact (or as close as possible), well sourced, and presented with the ability for dissent or rebuttal to be heard.

Actually we're probably more of a corporatocracy anymore.

quote:

We live in a democracy.

Right, I wish.

quote:

Just don't give us advise on the scope and solution to current problems like our economic downturn.

When was the last time I gave you advice? I'm not even sure we are talking about the same thing anymore. Maybe you don't read my posts or read too much of what you want between the lines?

quote:

You sound proud of your ignorance, which is an incredible concept to me, but whatever, dude.

Interesting...

quote:

Does news from horrible places not deserve to be shared for some reason?

It definitely does, but it needs to be shared in the context of the country as a whole. When the media says we are in a crisis, and they exclusively hammer us with the worst cases of people getting crapped on, it tends to give the idea that this is going on everywhere. Even if it is qualified that the report is the worst case scenario, human nature tends to take over and the audience tends to think it's like that all over. The mortgage crisis, for instance, is certainly a crisis to the people who have gotten in over their heads, but its not like everyone in America is in trouble or even knows somebody in trouble with their mortgage. So, we can blame ourselves to an extent, and we can also blame the media who should be aware of the effect they set in motion.

quote:

democracies rely on the free flow of information and participants who know what's going on.

Democracy is a scary thing. It is fortunate that the framers of our country understood that we need to be ruled by law and the will of the people at the same time. The flow of information can be manipulated, and if it is too easy to make changes based on that information, trouble results. That is why we are in Iraq right now.

The News Hour with Jim Lereh is everything a daily news show needs to be. It's on PBS at 6:00.

I also think The Atlantic is a very good magazine.

CNN is pretty silly. Always shouting when they could just turn the mics down.

But the idea that the media is making the economic downturn is silly. The idea that they shouldn't report on it is even sillier.

People may make bad choices with the information reported, but reporters need to report.

The most famous example of media created hysteria:

War of the Worlds Radio Broadcast

If the media can make people believe they are being invaded by Martians, maybe, just maybe they can make people think more subtle stuff. I know there is a difference in the nightly news and Orson Wells' dramatization, but why is it so far fetched to say this or that is perpetuated by the media in order to titillate and create drama and bolster the size of their audience? Or maybe for more political reasons?

quote:

News should be hard fact (or as close as possible), well sourced, and presented with the ability for dissent or rebuttal to be heard.

Oh, like the run-up to the Iraq invasion? What about the 'well sourced' rebuttal to the administration's claim of nukes and WMD? Where was the objectivity of the press then? Seems like you want to have your yellow cake and eat it, too. The press is a tool of this administration and reporters who don't agree with that setup are routinely 'frozen out' of the loop and denied access. That doesn't sound like a free or liberal press to me. How do you get to the 'hard fact' under those conditions?

quote:

I know there is a difference in the nightly news and Orson Wells' dramatization, but why is it so far fetched to say this or that is perpetuated by the media in order to titillate and create drama and bolster the size of their audience? Or maybe for more political reasons?

There is no monolithic "Media". There are hundreds of media outlets and thousands of reporters and editors. I will certainly admit that we see a herd mentality from time to time but the "Media" couldn't agree on how to report a car theft with 50 witnesses, let alone a complicated economic situation like we're in now.

Because we live in a relatively free society (yes, I know some of you disagree) the media is free to do a good job or a crappy job. At any one time, and with any one story, a majority of the media is doing a crappy job but a few outlets are doing a good job. It's our responsibility as consumers of news to pick out the highest quality media we can find and then to use our best judgment in putting the information in context.

My point is that just because the media isn't perfect doesn't mean that we should put our heads in the sand and be ignorant about current events. If you watch the news with a critical mind you can see when things are being hyped. If you read media like newsmagazines that explain stories in more depth you are much better prepared to understand the issues that affect our country and us individually.

I agree with Tao, if you did nothing but watch the News Hour with Jim Lehrer every day you would be pretty well informed. The News Hour isn't perfect but it's not bad either. They do an excellent job of getting people from both sides of an issue to explain what's going on.

And regarding War of the Worlds, every time a new type of media is created it takes a while for people to get used to it and turn on the proper internal filters. We have the same thing going on today with the Internet. There are all kinds of false stories going around the Internet (i.e. Obama is a Muslim) and people swallow this stuff as if it were reported on the CBS News. People watch videos that are full of factual lies about the 9/11 bombing and they get totally sucked in by the theory that the US government perpetrated the act. It's easy to get the truth but they never stop to ask, "Gee, I wonder if the factual sounding statements in that video are really true?"

A lot of people in this country are really ignorant and dumb which is why some of us need to spend the time to actually understand current events so that we can have a positive impact on our national policies.

quote:

Oh, like the run-up to the Iraq invasion?

Not even sure where to start with that.

There's a Frontline documentary somewhere around that talks about how documents pertaining to the run up to the war that sat in a provided room at the capitol for lawmakers to read were hardly touched. Very few read the thing, thus you had guys like Paul and Kucinich voting against the war, because they actually did read the evidence and read the resolutions.

My guess is that if you were upset at the press coverage of the run up (if I understand your post correctly) it's because they were as lazy as the lawmakers and didn't do their homework - they probably assumed that because both parties supported war resolutions, there was no story there.

There were plenty of stories criticizing this administration. Time magazine reports on Ambassador Wilson and his wife. Judith Miller going to jail instead of revealing her whitehouse sources, etc. In some cases there was some very good investigative reporting, in some cases with regard to the LA Times, NY Times, Reuters, CBS News, etc., there was also outright fraudulent reporting by partisan hacks.

You have a point about favorable reporting and anonymous sourcing vs. access though. The way they get away with non-favorable reporting though is to use anonymous sources - which is always dubious and suspect. "A source close to the administration stated..." etc. The old Woodward and Bernstein trick: grant me access or I will skewer you with what we have and use anonymous sourcing.

If you watch the Washington press core you'll see Hellen Thomas in the arcade. If there really was a concerted effort to limit access by this administration (or the last for that matter) she'd be the first on the chopping block, along with David Gregory of NBC and a correspondent or two from the New York Times and Washington Post. You may remember hearing Dick Cheney call a New York Times reporter an asshole when he didn't think anyone heard him. Politicians generally don't care for the press. Some of these guys are very hostile toward this administration and the politicians then just shove it right back at them. Some were very hostile to Clinton as well - just par for the course. It goes back again to skepticism vs. cynicism - some of these people are burned out cranks or arrogant jerkoffs who are basically just disrepectful and aren't interested in much more than their own power and careers - How about that Katie Couric making a $15 mil. salary. Good one.

On the flipside, some of the reporters are very decent hardworking people who strive to be honest and accurate, live by the ethical code of conduct. I've known dozens of reporters over the years, one reporter who actually went to work for Bush I in the Whitehouse (as an editor of sorts) and a reporter who worked for CNN back in the early 90s to name just a few - all really nice/cool/honest people. They're all tough as nails when it comes to digging up the truth - they would beat you to a pulp if you suggested government collusion.

quote:

There is no monolithic "Media". There are hundreds of media outlets and thousands of reporters and editors.

That's true to a point. However, most of the news you get has been filtered and provided through either AP, UPI, Reuters, etc. The larger papers like NY Times and LA Times as well as some of the larger chains like Tribune Media Services and Scripps Howard News Service also provide content. All major newspapers and now cable news channels are relying more and more on wire services to provide the headline news. So... regardless of which of the hundreds of outlets you choose, chances are you're getting wire news. Some papers, and probably TV too, don't require that the AP (or other wire service be credited) so in some cases you may not know unless you read or see more than one source with the same story slugged elsewhere.

Groupthink is also an issue. But that's another post and we would disagree anyway so it's a waste of time

Back to Nbart's post. I think what he is saying is that we are inundated with this stuff day in and day out. Negative news bombardment probably has an effect. This morning on NPR the correspondent said something about consumers being bombed with loads of negative economic news has caused the consumer confidence index to fall - hmm... really? I think that is Nbart's point and what we're talking about. Enough of this negative stuff over and over and over will have an effect.

Self fulfilling prophecy.

quote:

the "Media" couldn't agree on how to report a car theft with 50 witnesses, let alone a complicated economic situation like we're in now.

They can't all agree on the facts, but they know how to hype them to their benefit. None of them are going to say, "You know, everything's peachy today. Turn off the TV and go outside and play." They can make stupid stuff news worthy, make more out of it than it is, and take a bad situation happening to a few and make everyone feel they are in crisis or a frog's hair away. There may not be a media monolith that we are aware of, but there are techniques and trends that are used by most of the news sources out there to personalize for everyone the problems of a few...such as the sensational murder case of the day.

quote:

None of them are going to say, "You know, everything's peachy today. Turn off the TV and go outside and play."

I guess that's my point--it would be stupid to say any such thing, and yet you seem to long for a news outlet that would have the 'courage' to be so ignorant. Look around you. Is everything really peachy to you? I think you need to face the fact that the world is not Leave it to Beaver of the '50s. Tens of thousands of Americans lost their jobs last month--they got fired, and some percentage of these brothers and sisters of yours are now faced with the possibility of not being able to feed their families. Many millions of Americans cannot afford health insurance and are therefore exposed to financial calamity on a level I hope neither of us will ever know. Thousands of Americans have died fighting a war that was sold to us in an unethical manner at best, by an administration whose leader *has* done exactly what you hope for: tell everyone 'it's ok, nothing's really that bad, go out and play. In fact, I'll give you SIX HUNDRED DOLLARS to shut up and go buy something pretty for yourself! How about that?" Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have lost family members at the hands of the US military, and some percentage of them are joining efforts to harm us in the future as a result.

Is the world all bad? No, of course not. I read about promising medical breakthroughs and heroic actions and heartwarming events like infants dialing 911 to save their parents from strokes and dogs performing Heimlich manuevers and new hospitals in Iraq and so on, all the time. Because I pay attention. But the bad is as real as the good. I don't want a whitewash job. It's my world and I am part of it.

quote:

I don't want a whitewash job. It's my world and I am part of it.

+100!!!

quote:

Back to Nbart's post. I think what he is saying is that we are inundated with this stuff day in and day out. Negative news bombardment probably has an effect. This morning on NPR the correspondent said something about consumers being bombed with loads of negative economic news has caused the consumer confidence index to fall - hmm... really? I think that is Nbart's point and what we're talking about. Enough of this negative stuff over and over and over will have an effect.

Thank You.

quote:

In fact, I'll give you SIX HUNDRED DOLLARS to shut up and go buy something pretty for yourself! How about that?"

Priceless!!

quote:

I guess that's my point--it would be stupid to say any such thing, and yet you seem to long for a news outlet that would have the 'courage' to be so ignorant. Look around you. Is everything really peachy to you?

Yes, everything is peachy. My life is like "Leave it to Beaver", except June has much bigger hooters and is a demon in bed. I have an 80/20 mortgage on a house that is much bigger and nicer than I need and was overinflated in price when I bought it. I never save any money, yet I have cable tv with movie channels, chainsmoke 3 packs a day, order pizza 5 or 6 times a month, eat out whenever the notion strikes, drop $5 at Starbucks every morning, run out to Walmart to buy a box of Kleenex and end up spending $100 on crap, drink a case of beer every few days, and make payments on a brand new car. I feel guilty if my kids aren't dressed in name brand clothes and have all the latest video games, an Ipod, and a cell phone. I am in a constant race to have more stuff,an easier lifestyle, more expensive toys, wilder weekends, and more exciting vacations than my parent's generation. I'm putting my home up as collateral and getting neck deep in credit card debt to do it. We must be in a recession, or else I'd have enough to live on...besides, the news says everyone else is like me, every day they say it over and over. It's not my fault. It's the damned economic recession.

quote:

Thousands of Americans have died fighting a war that was sold to us in an unethical manner at best, by an administration whose leader *has* done exactly what you hope for: tell everyone 'it's ok, nothing's really that bad, go out and play. In fact, I'll give you SIX HUNDRED DOLLARS to shut up and go buy something pretty for yourself! How about that?"

Thumbs down on invading Iraq. Thumbs up on $600. What are you going to do with yours?

quote:

but they know how to hype them to their benefit.

I started reading Michael Crichton's "Next" the other day. The front part cracks me up because it sums up his stories: This novel is fiction, except for the parts that aren't. Anyone who's ever read Crichton's stories from Andromeda Strain to Jurassic Park will notice the heavy bibliographies in the back of the books. The book is about genetic engineering, there are parts in the