With all the good news about the economy the past few years, it was a wonder why only Breibart.com seemed to take notice. But never fear, the MSM loves talking about the economy, just as long as it does what it wants.
I may be a little naive, but I am not totally convinced "bad news sells" is the reason for this type of reporting. The good Economy during the 90's was reported and often. Nowadays, well, not so much.
It all makes perfect sense to me really. It is all about perception. Was the economy good during the Clinton years because of Clinton and is the economy good today because of Bush? I think I know the answer to that question, but it is not the point. It is that the media is so willing to heap praise on one and not the other.
Throughout history, the president has always been congragulated for a strong economy whether it was his doing or not. Why is it different today? I know the answer, but ufortunately I am the one who sounds like Chicken Little.
I don't care really if people don't like Bush, but I do care about media bias
I realize the video I linked to is a little maniacal, but he does make a good point. No one can remove bias from there reporting. And if 90% of 143 journalists gave money to the DNC in 2006, then that means one thing. Liberal media bias. Why not hire people who have a conservative bias? Foxnews and talk radio proves there is a market for it. Why not go where the money is? It makes me wonder sometimes.
Like Bashman, I don't think there is a conspiracy. Actually, I don't know what the reason is, but it is annoying whatever is causing it.
I agree with the fact that there is a liberal MSM bias, but I don't necessarily agree that its Liberal bias which puts big Wall St. drops on the front page. Being an election year, it may serve more than one purpose, I'll give you that.
Most people don't really understand that they themselves get affected by Wall Street. Most probably think its just the evil, rich, white guys getting what they deserve for being evil, rich, white guys. Promoting bad days on Wall Street serves a few purposes regardless of who is President.
- Bad news sells. - A fall on Wall street means "The Man" is getting his due.
I didn't necessarily view this as catastrophic reporting of the decline in the economy, just a day's worth of notes on a bad day. The lending issues are real, and the shift to the bond market is as well. They even quoted the guy as saying, "People will leg it back to the market.". I didn't get the same bias as you did I guess. It was a pretty bad day that should be presented, shit the DJ was down better than 500 pts yesterday before a late closing rally.
4 comments:
Bad news sells.
The market is full of chicken littles. When its bad, its always going to be bad. When its good, there's no end to the good times.
And the market never goes straight up, so news writers just wait for inevitable bad news that is bound to happen a couple times a year.
I agree that they won't point to the overall growth since 9/11.
I may be a little naive, but I am not totally convinced "bad news sells" is the reason for this type of reporting. The good Economy during the 90's was reported and often. Nowadays, well, not so much.
It all makes perfect sense to me really. It is all about perception. Was the economy good during the Clinton years because of Clinton and is the economy good today because of Bush? I think I know the answer to that question, but it is not the point. It is that the media is so willing to heap praise on one and not the other.
Throughout history, the president has always been congragulated for a strong economy whether it was his doing or not. Why is it different today? I know the answer, but ufortunately I am the one who sounds like Chicken Little.
I don't care really if people don't like Bush, but I do care about media bias
I realize the video I linked to is a little maniacal, but he does make a good point. No one can remove bias from there reporting. And if 90% of 143 journalists gave money to the DNC in 2006, then that means one thing. Liberal media bias. Why not hire people who have a conservative bias? Foxnews and talk radio proves there is a market for it. Why not go where the money is? It makes me wonder sometimes.
Like Bashman, I don't think there is a conspiracy. Actually, I don't know what the reason is, but it is annoying whatever is causing it.
And here is one more
I agree with the fact that there is a liberal MSM bias, but I don't necessarily agree that its Liberal bias which puts big Wall St. drops on the front page. Being an election year, it may serve more than one purpose, I'll give you that.
Most people don't really understand that they themselves get affected by Wall Street. Most probably think its just the evil, rich, white guys getting what they deserve for being evil, rich, white guys. Promoting bad days on Wall Street serves a few purposes regardless of who is President.
- Bad news sells.
- A fall on Wall street means "The Man" is getting his due.
I didn't necessarily view this as catastrophic reporting of the decline in the economy, just a day's worth of notes on a bad day. The lending issues are real, and the shift to the bond market is as well. They even quoted the guy as saying, "People will leg it back to the market.". I didn't get the same bias as you did I guess. It was a pretty bad day that should be presented, shit the DJ was down better than 500 pts yesterday before a late closing rally.
Post a Comment