When I say both, I mean kind of like this:

 

The media takes what people are saying and then exaggerates it to the nth degree. Then people talk about it.

 

Once again, the media can't cause a recession but it can make it worse. So the media is not a driver for a recession happening. But it is a driver for a recession getting worse.

 

Specifically, what part of the recession is the media exaggerating? Should they be reporting on Chrysler shutting down or is that only feeding into the overblown hysteria?

No matter what, the government's hand is in the economy. No way around it.

The economy is bad and how long it will take to recover is an unknown. Most people haven't felt the pain personally, but its coming. The US government has obligations that are very close to the value of the net worth of the US population. Cities and states are looking at huge shortfalls. How do you think they're going to pay for things?

Specifically, what part of the recession is the media exaggerating? Should they be reporting on Chrysler shutting down or is that only feeding into the overblown hysteria?

For example, the article title was "Chrysler shuts down all production!" While, nearly 3/4ths of the way down, you find out that most auto companies shut down around the holiday times, and the workers will be partially paid anyways. The title gives the impression that Chrysler will never operate again.

 

To be honest, I don't have time to go find a large number of specific articles. It's just a vibe I get from reading and watching the mainstream media. Maybe I'm the crazy one.

Slash taxes. This country has the second highest corporate tax rate among developed countries and yet the American people have allowed their government to demonize corporations for outsourcing jobs and moving operations offshore. Our government is driving jobs away and continuing to borrow money from China and raising taxes on our job providers is not going to solve the problem.

 

Cutting taxes, while an important PART of the overall equation to fix the economy and help us recover from the recession, is not some economic cure-all that will, in and of itself, end this entire thing. The benefits of a tax cut take a while to work their way through the economy and be felt by businesses and private individuals. While we're awaiting this benefit (and, yes, it will happen), many more businesses will be shuttered and millions more jobs lost and we will be driven into a deeper and much more harsh recession (time to even use the "D" word). The country needs economic stimulus NOW. That will not be derived solely through slashing taxes. It would be wonderful if we did not have to add on to our country's national debt. Unfortunately now is not the time to be worrying about it.

I'm no expert but I've heard some say that today is different from the Reagan years when the economy did respond to tax cuts. Anyone?

I'm no expert but I've heard some say that today is different from the Reagan years when the economy did respond to tax cuts. Anyone?

 

For the record, I am saving this post. You will no doubt see it brought back up again.

For example, the article title was "Chrysler shuts down all production!" While, nearly 3/4ths of the way down, you find out that most auto companies shut down around the holiday times, and the workers will be partially paid anyways. The title gives the impression that Chrysler will never operate again.

 

To be honest, I don't have time to go find a large number of specific articles. It's just a vibe I get from reading and watching the mainstream media. Maybe I'm the crazy one.

 

I won't totally disagree with you on this one, but there is only so much that can be fit into a title of an article. Certainly when the article is written, a title is used that hopefully intrigues the reader into reading the full story.

 

I don't find anything in the body of the story, however, that seems disingenuous or misleading. They were very clear that this was an extension of a normal layoff and that workers would still be paid a portion of their regular salaries, though some of it would come from unemployment benefits. I see nothing in the story that implies that Chrysler would never operate again or that this story in particular supports the position that the media is feeding the condition of the economic crisis.

:thumb: The media makes news and then reports it all the time. In part, that is what is driving newspaper circulation down. Whether its global warming, presidential elections, or the economy, the mainstream media writes a script and then reports and/or emphasizes stories that support their world view. The health of the economy does depend in large measure on consumer confidence and the media does play a role in bolstering or undermining such confidence.

 

Not completely untrue, especially as it relates to politics and the presidential election, but an overexaggeration as a whole. So the media - corporations run by some very smart guys - is intentionally slanting stories to emphasize the negative parts of the economy knowing full well that it would drive down their own newspaper circulation, stock prices , and profits? And why would they do that?

 

So this same media that has helped destroy the confidence of consumer over the past few months would conversely get credit for running it through the roof these past few years, right?

 

Media absolutely slant stories. Media absolutely favor certain individuals/parties and bias their writing towards/against them. But it happens on both sides. Doesn't make it right, but it is reality and it's been going on for a long time. But I really just don't follow any explanation that the media has some hidden agenda for reporting and embellishing any negative economic news so as to keep us in this quagmire as long as possible.

Cutting taxes, while an important PART of the overall equation to fix the economy and help us recover from the recession, is not some economic cure-all that will, in and of itself, end this entire thing. The benefits of a tax cut take a while to work their way through the economy and be felt by businesses and private individuals. While we're awaiting this benefit (and, yes, it will happen), many more businesses will be shuttered and millions more jobs lost and we will be driven into a deeper and much more harsh recession (time to even use the "D" word). The country needs economic stimulus NOW. That will not be derived solely through slashing taxes. It would be wonderful if we did not have to add on to our country's national debt. Unfortunately now is not the time to be worrying about it.

High taxes, unreasonably complex and erratic regulation, and government antipathy toward business in general (as demonstrated both the campaign trail and during public "hearings") have helped bring the economy to its current state. As long as people foolishly look to the federal government to provide jobs, good jobs will continue to disappear. Plunging American taxpayers deeper into debt will result in even higher taxes or soaring inflation as we inflate the dollar to pay the debt. More government is not the answer to economic problems and it never has been.

Not completely untrue, especially as it relates to politics and the presidential election, but an overexaggeration as a whole. So the media - corporations run by some very smart guys - is intentionally slanting stories to emphasize the negative parts of the economy knowing full well that it would drive down their own newspaper circulation, stock prices , and profits? And why would they do that?

You can ask the question why the mainstream media consistently caters to the liberal fringe in this country while alienating tens of millions of their customers (i.e., conservatives). For the most part, corporate chieftans have taken a hands-off approach to news subsidiaries and many of those corporate heads are themselves very liberal. The market is not driving the news or Fox would not be almost alone in trying to draw a conservative audience.

So this same media that has helped destroy the confidence of consumer over the past few months would conversely get credit for running it through the roof these past few years, right?

The economy has thrived for most of Bush's two terms despite the media. The media never ceases to paint corporations as greedy undertaxed entities that are responsible for poverty. Meanwhile, there has been very little blame placed on the government regulators and overseers (Dodd, Frank, et al.) and virtually no demands that Congress investigate its own members' role in the current crisis.

Media absolutely slant stories. Media absolutely favor certain individuals/parties and bias their writing towards/against them. But it happens on both sides. Doesn't make it right, but it is reality and it's been going on for a long time. But I really just don't follow any explanation that the media has some hidden agenda for reporting and embellishing any negative economic news so as to keep us in this quagmire as long as possible.

Much of the damage that the media does is done out of ignorance. Global warming is one of the best examples. If the economy was not already on the rocks, adopting the strict CO2 emission standards and phasing out the use of fossil fuels through legislation would have certainly wrecked the economy. Global warming is presented by most of the media as a fact and as a crisis, simply because journalists typically have no clue when it comes to math and science.

You can ask the question why the mainstream media consistently caters to the liberal fringe in this country while alienating tens of millions of their customers (i.e., conservatives). For the most part, corporate chieftans have taken a hands-off approach to news subsidiaries and many of those corporate heads are themselves very liberal. The market is not driving the news or Fox would not be almost alone in trying to draw a conservative audience.

 

This issue in this thread concerning the media really isn't about whether they are unreasonably conversative/liberal (clearly they are liberal), but whether they are accurately reporting on the current economic situation. I submit, for the most part, they are.

 

Come on. These same corporate chieftains have shareholders to whom they answer and are equally (moreso) concerned about their own option/bonus awards. So they sit on their hands in their offices while their news organizations provide misinformation about the economy to the public that personally harms them and their company? All because they are stupid, liberal, or ignorant. Don't buy it.

 

The economy has thrived for most of Bush's two terms despite the media. The media never ceases to paint corporations as greedy undertaxed entities that are responsible for poverty. Meanwhile, there has been very little blame placed on the government regulators and overseers (Dodd, Frank, et al.) and virtually no demands that Congress investigate its own members' role in the current crisis.

 

Didn't really answer my question. I'll assume your answer is "no", they do not get credit for the economic boon we experienced over the past few years. And I agree. They shouldn't. Just like they aren't responsible for causing or worsening the crunch we now find ourselves in.

 

Much of the damage that the media does is done out of ignorance. Global warming is one of the best examples. If the economy was not already on the rocks, adopting the strict CO2 emission standards and phasing out the use of fossil fuels through legislation would have certainly wrecked the economy. Global warming is presented by most of the media as a fact and as a crisis, simply because journalists typically have no clue when it comes to math and science.

 

You have an obvious hatred of the media and that's certainly your right. But to paint them with such a broad brush of ignorance just doesn't make sense. The point has been made in this thread that the media has intentionally and/or unscrupulously portrayed the economy as being worse than it is - either for their own personal gain, out of ignorance, or because they are only interested in reporting "bad" news. I don't buy it. I see no evidence that they are overstating the severity of this recession nor have any legitimate motive to do so.

You have an obvious hatred of the media and that's certainly your right. But to paint them with such a broad brush of ignorance just doesn't make sense.

I don't paint the entire media with a broad brush - only the 95% who are apparently undereducated and/or lazy and/or infected with an extreme political bias and aversion for the truth. Tim Russert and Sam Donaldson, two liberals, are among my all time favorite members of the media. People should be able to do their job without letting their political opinions cloud their judgment and destroy their credibility and Russert and Donaldson are proof that it can be done.

The point has been made in this thread that the media has intentionally and/or unscrupulously portrayed the economy as being worse than it is - either for their own personal gain, out of ignorance, or because they are only interested in reporting "bad" news. I don't buy it. I see no evidence that they are overstating the severity of this recession nor have any legitimate motive to do so.

It would be difficult to overstate the damage that has been done to our economy but the media's biased reporting that led us here was not helpful. Where I fault the media now is their failure to hold anybody accountable for this mess by doing some serious investigative reporting. Instead, they follow the lead of liberal politicians and continue to scapegoat American corporations.

 

An economy built on ever deepening debt, whether private or public, cannot remain healthy forever. Continuing to encourage Americans to dive deeper into debt and borrowing more money from the new "haves" of the world is not the solution and our media is just along for the ride.