« Why the Left should learn to love liberalism | Main | Visiting Dartmouth »
How right-wing are journalists on economic issues?
Henry Farrell writes:
...there’s plenty of survey evidence (Jonathan Chait discusses this in his recent book) that journalists tend to have somewhat right-of-center views on economic issues.
From my experience:
1. Journalists are likely to be far more cosmopolitan (pro-free trade, pro-immigration) than is the general public.
2. Journalists are more likely to be suspicious of corporations and indeed more likely to be suspicious in general. People lie to them every day, repeatedly and often without shame.
3. Journalists are more likely to think that "good government" is in fact possible, if perhaps difficult to achieve. If they were complete cynics, they would not become underpaid journalists.
4. If anything, it is the odd mix between cynicism and idealism that defines the journalistic political point of view.
5. Most journalists work in a declining sector -- newspapers or TV -- and this does not augur well for their belief in progress and the virtues of economic growth. They are not well-positioned to enjoy "creative destruction."
6. Not many top journalists are "far left Democrats." But most are Democrats. I also do not think many journalists would endorse the economic proposals of the rational wing of the Republican Party, say Greg Mankiw or Martin Feldstein. Journalists are likely to think those proposals do not show enough concern for the poor.
7. Journalists tend to favor visible stories and neglect invisible opportunity costs and invisible hand mechanisms, which often but not always puts them against the side of the market.
8. Chait cites evidence that journalists are more likely to support cuts in Medicare and Social Security. This comes on p.142 though it does not seem to be matched to a particular footnote. I am willing to hear more but I am not convinced. I wouldn't be shocked if a Pew survey showed such responses, but when push comes to shove the self-image of "defender of the downtrodden" is more important to many journalists than "advocate of fiscal responsibility."
In sum, the left-right spectrum is not the best way to understand the economic views of journalists. But, when it comes to economic issues, it is hard for me to put journalists on the right side of that line.
Addendum: I am indebted to Russ Roberts for a useful conversation on this topic, though of course he is not responsible for these views.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on October 5, 2007 at 07:42 AM in Political Science | Permalink
Comments
Very insightful summary, and I ought to know. I would only add my subjective impression that most journalists are downwardly mobile--they come from families of equal or (usually) higher income, and this sense of living on less while hobnobbing with the rich and powerful has a strong influence on their outlook, which is by and large unduly pessimistic except for an undying faith, constantly betrayed, in government regulation to solve problems. The downward mobility is especially pronounced in places like NY, LA and Washington, where real estate is so expensive--and the media are so important.
Posted by: Dan at Oct 5, 2007 7:51:03 AM
I think that Henry Farrell may be like Eric Alterman in that when he writes that someone is "right-of-center", he really means "right-of-me."
Posted by: Don at Oct 5, 2007 7:57:25 AM
It's also worth noting that the biases of individual journalists are unlikely to be the same as those of journalism in the aggregate. While an individual journalist, or even the majority of individual journalists, may be sympathetic to a things-will-work-out people-will-muddle-through view (eg free trade), only the journalist who thinks that there are crises and stories to be found will end up publishing. We should expect journalism to always be more strident and activist that journalists are.
Posted by: Grant Gould at Oct 5, 2007 8:24:54 AM
"underpaid journalists"....what makes you think they're underpaid?
Posted by: Alarishi at Oct 5, 2007 8:44:24 AM
In #2 you get it wrong. It should read "Journalists lie to people every day, repeatedly and often without shame." In addition, journalists are only marginally better than politicians who always lie without shame. For additional evidence, please read online newspapers from Spain and South America.
Posted by: Edgardo at Oct 5, 2007 8:49:22 AM
There's also the issue of academic experience. Most journalists are really bad at math. Also, most have only had one econ. course and usually did poorly in that.
Posted by: Ted Craig at Oct 5, 2007 8:53:47 AM
IMHO it does not matter what Journalists economic beliefs are because they are driven by the sensational and that leads to attack on corporations which attracts eyes. This bias toward sensational always leads to calls for more government intervention even when they expose government the idea is to reform it or make it bigger.
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed – and thus clamorous to be led to safety -- by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." -- H.L. Mencken
One could say: the whole aim of Journalists is to keep the populace alarmed – and thus clamorous to tune in a 11 for the full story -- by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary.
Posted by: Floccina at Oct 5, 2007 9:30:06 AM
By now, isn't the "rational wing of the Republican Party" more accurately described as the "rational wing of the Democratic Party"? William F Buckley left, OK. The Grand Old Party is, from an intellectual perspective, dead and unnaturally animated by foul practices, but mostly just by inertia
Posted by: michael vassar at Oct 5, 2007 9:38:29 AM
Michael Vassar-
Please tell me the names of the members of the rational wing of the Democratic Party. I assume that you are referring to members of the national government.
Posted by: Rich Berger at Oct 5, 2007 12:14:31 PM
it is the odd mix between cynicism and idealism
See, e.g., Call Northside 777.
Posted by: washerdreyer at Oct 5, 2007 12:20:19 PM
"Journalists tend to favor visible stories and neglect invisible opportunity costs and invisible hand mechanisms, which often but not always puts them against the side of the market."
Speaking as a journalist, this, in my experience, is the biggest problem.
Posted by: Franklin Harris at Oct 5, 2007 1:05:53 PM
Most journalists, like most Americans, are economic ignoramuses. I doubt that it has much, if anything, to do w/their politics. O'Reilly, for instance, is often portrayed as a right-wing kind of guy, but he is an economic ignoramus of world-class caliber. He's clueless about supply-demand and opportunity cost. He ranks right up there w/Naomi Klein.
Two courses in economics, and one in accounting, should be added to the required core for a baccalaureate from any institution in this country. The accounting course will, if nothing else, teach them (a) how to balance their checkbooks, and (b) something about how to understand financial statements published by corporations. What's wrong w/the curriculum having a few "skills for living"?
Posted by: Warren Miller at Oct 5, 2007 2:08:03 PM
In my experience -- some 10 years removed from newspapering -- staff at smaller publications are more politically heterogenous.
But the bias in favor of storylines is universal.
I linked to Kling's linking of yours at this post, commenting on the Washington Post's piece on Stoneridge today.
Posted by: Carter Wood at Oct 5, 2007 3:36:03 PM
As a working reporter, all said by Cowen and commenters thus far is correct to one degree or another. I'd add that journalists wrongly beleive that markets can only work well if actors have good motives.
Journalists rightly know that
most people do not have good motives, and so are skeptical of markets and economic freedom. Also, journalist like to view themselves as being ideology free and pragmatic. Government intervention, in spite of the track record, seems to be the practical way to address problems while the "let markets decide" refrain strikes many reporters as naive or faith-based.
Posted by: Kevin B. O'Reilly at Oct 5, 2007 4:56:01 PM
An addendum: so much of journalism constitues of the find problem/fix problem narrative, and the "leave things as they are and things will gradually and imperceptibly improve through a poorly understood -- even 'invisible' -- process" doesn't fit the narrative very well.
Posted by: Kevin B. O'Reilly at Oct 5, 2007 4:59:01 PM
Kevin B. O'Reilly wrote:
"I'd add that journalists wrongly beleive that markets can only work well if actors have good motives."
And universally, people think "good" means selfless. Since only about 0.001% of people are good by this definition, the State must take over. Of course, then that just transposes the problem. How can a dictatorship work if the people in power are not good?
For an antidote to this dilemma, see _Atlas Shrugged_ by Ayn Rand.
Posted by: Bearster at Oct 5, 2007 5:33:21 PM
-->Journalists rightly know that
most people do not have good motives, and so are skeptical of markets and economic freedom.<--
And, of course, that is famously 180 degrees off. It is the free market that drives people who do not necessarily have "good" motives to do things that help society as a whole. See _The Wealth of Nations_ by Adam Smith.
Posted by: Scott Wood at Oct 5, 2007 9:06:03 PM
Kevin: the process by which free markets create improvement is well understood: through freedom, people only enter into trades which benefit them. It's just this distributed incrementalism is hard to see, and hard to write about. It's not much of a story to say "John Q. Public saved 10 cents on his toilet paper today by switching to a brand that doesn't bother to put perfume on something you use where you can't smell anything anyway (thank goodness)." or "Megan left her hardware store clerk's job to go to college to get training as an AC Technician." It might be a story if you could find lots of people going back to college, but that's hard to determine. It's only one tiny tiny portion of what people do to improve their lot when they're free to do so.
Posted by: Russell Nelson at Oct 6, 2007 2:01:09 AM
Journalists tend not to challenge the status quo, or if they do, they do it through using the linguistic and conceptual structures provided by a distinct alternative set of views.
Few journalists have the financial incentives or freedom or background to absolutely start afresh with their thinking and writing.
In the business sphere, few challenge received wisdoms. This has the effect of adding to booms and busts. But in this, they are just the same as anyone else, just more visible.
Disclosure: am a financial journalist.
Posted by: Tom at Oct 6, 2007 8:53:09 AM
Posted by: 鑽石 at Apr 2, 2008 10:21:40 PM
