Tuesday, Matt O’Brien, Economics writer at the Washington Post’s wonkblog, wrote a piece entitled, “There’s still no reason to be afraid of the inflation monster”. In the piece he lays out how the inflation hawks have been eagerly searching for evidence of the “inevitable” inflation monster that will wipe out wealth in the US.
O’Brien says:
“First, it was the national debt and the Fed’s bond-buying that were supposed to bring us back to 1970s America, if not 1920s Germany. Then, when that turned out to be wrong, it was only supposed to be a matter of time until it was right — if it wasn’t already, and government bureaucrats were just hiding it! But now, with PCE inflation at 1.1 percent, even the most diehard inflation hawks realize they need a new story. So, worrying about rising prices is out. Instead, worrying about rising wages is in.”
He goes on to talk about how a Monday Wall Street Journal piece lacks evidential basis for its claims about building wage pressure, and that the piece even acknowledges its own lack of evidence to back up its claims.
It would appear to me, that the sort of inflation hawkery that O’Brien is thoroughly and rightfully ridiculing, is emblematic of a broader issue in journalism. Not letting the data be the sole director of an analytical deconstruction, but rather looking for data that reaffirms a fundamental belief. When one looks for data to verify a preconceived notion about a policy, they pigeon hole themselves into only finding things that concur with their preconceived notions. It’s a self fulfilling prophecy. They will at times even ignore the most glaring of red flags. It’s punditry, not journalism.
The best example of this is Lara Logan’s 60 minutes piece on the Benghazi attack. Joe Hagan’s feature in this week’s NY Mag profiles Logan, and chronicles the debacle. According to Hagan’s reporting, when Logan was asked whether Dylan Davies—the report’s main source who was later proved to have lied about his account of incident—was believable. She said that Davies was one of the “best guys you’ll ever meet”. Whether she blinded herself to the idea that Davies was lying because of the trust that she built with servicemen and contractors like him throughout her years in Iraq and Afghanistan, or because she innately believed that the Obama Administration’s response to the terror attack was inadequate, the fact of the matter is, that she was blinded because of unverified preconceived notions brought into the reporting process.
The problem isn’t necessarily that journalists are biased, because we all think things, especially when we spend so much of our time participating in an 24 hour environment of dialogue. The problem is when those thoughts, whether through a feeling of righteousness, or self-worth, become bigger than the fact-finding impulse within ourselves. The yearning for truth, and not validation of a truth that you project on the world. That is the true meaning of journalism.
O’Brien says:
“First, it was the national debt and the Fed’s bond-buying that were supposed to bring us back to 1970s America, if not 1920s Germany. Then, when that turned out to be wrong, it was only supposed to be a matter of time until it was right — if it wasn’t already, and government bureaucrats were just hiding it! But now, with PCE inflation at 1.1 percent, even the most diehard inflation hawks realize they need a new story. So, worrying about rising prices is out. Instead, worrying about rising wages is in.”
He goes on to talk about how a Monday Wall Street Journal piece lacks evidential basis for its claims about building wage pressure, and that the piece even acknowledges its own lack of evidence to back up its claims.
It would appear to me, that the sort of inflation hawkery that O’Brien is thoroughly and rightfully ridiculing, is emblematic of a broader issue in journalism. Not letting the data be the sole director of an analytical deconstruction, but rather looking for data that reaffirms a fundamental belief. When one looks for data to verify a preconceived notion about a policy, they pigeon hole themselves into only finding things that concur with their preconceived notions. It’s a self fulfilling prophecy. They will at times even ignore the most glaring of red flags. It’s punditry, not journalism.
The best example of this is Lara Logan’s 60 minutes piece on the Benghazi attack. Joe Hagan’s feature in this week’s NY Mag profiles Logan, and chronicles the debacle. According to Hagan’s reporting, when Logan was asked whether Dylan Davies—the report’s main source who was later proved to have lied about his account of incident—was believable. She said that Davies was one of the “best guys you’ll ever meet”. Whether she blinded herself to the idea that Davies was lying because of the trust that she built with servicemen and contractors like him throughout her years in Iraq and Afghanistan, or because she innately believed that the Obama Administration’s response to the terror attack was inadequate, the fact of the matter is, that she was blinded because of unverified preconceived notions brought into the reporting process.
The problem isn’t necessarily that journalists are biased, because we all think things, especially when we spend so much of our time participating in an 24 hour environment of dialogue. The problem is when those thoughts, whether through a feeling of righteousness, or self-worth, become bigger than the fact-finding impulse within ourselves. The yearning for truth, and not validation of a truth that you project on the world. That is the true meaning of journalism.
No comments :
Post a Comment