Why Are Gas Prices the Only Economic News?

Riprorin

Banned
Apr 25, 2000
9,634
0
0
Why Are Gas Prices the
Only Economic News?

Are prices rising to the point where Americans are suffering great financial hardship? The most current Consumer Price Index issued by the Department of Labor reported that prices rose 0.3 percent in April, and rose 2.3 percent since April 2003. But so far in May, the TV networks have found only one overwhelming story on the economy, the price of one single commodity: gas prices rising to ?all-time highs.?

From May 1 to May 26, the morning and evening news shows on ABC, CBS, and NBC have aired 50 news stories or interviews on ?skyrocketing? gas prices and their impact on the economy. (Twenty-three of those stories were brief anchor-read updates.) Of that sample, 22 stories inaccurately informed viewers of ?record highs? in gas prices. CBS was the Hype Channel, with 15 of the 22 ?record high? errors.

While the average nominal gas price has risen above $2 a gallon, the networks routinely fail to adjust for inflation. In today's dollars, gas prices were at least 26 percent higher in March 1981 after the Carter-era inflation spiral. Gas prices today would have to reach $2.99 a gallon to be a record.

The networks were all about stoking consumer anger. On ABC's Good Morning America May 19, reporter Jake Tapper warned: ?Whoever's at fault, Americans are hurting. Fifty-four percent say recent gas prices are causing financial hardship; 31 percent report serious hardship, a dramatic increase from previous gas crises.? Tapper went looking for consumers to get angry at the ?crisis? on camera:

? ?I'm mad. Why is it so high? I don't understand.?

? ?It stinks. I mean, I've never seen it this high.?

? ?It makes you angry because it doesn't make sense for gas to go up that fast overnight.?

? ?It's going to kill us. These prices are going to kill us, man.?

Reporters like Tapper are too eager to exploit the concept of ?hardship? to explain that it's not so scary in personal terms. If you buy 15 gallons of gas a week and it costs 50 cents more per gallon than it did a few months ago, that's a cost increase of just $7.50, which is less than the price of a movie ticket.

The networks also leave out the fact that personal incomes are rising faster than the rate of inflation. The Commerce Department reported today that disposable income, adjusted for inflation, rose 4.9 percent in the first three months of the year, more than the 4.3 percent previously estimated. The government also reported that economic growth is up 4.4 percent in the third quarter, and up five percent in the last 12 months, the fastest growth rate since 1984.

But good economic news is not big network news. When the Labor Department reported on May 7 that the unemployment rate declined to 5.6 percent, with the creation of 288,000 new jobs, it was a one-day story. The other rare bursts of economic news were gloomy. On May 8, ABC?s World News Tonight claimed it was ?the worst job market for teenagers since World War II.?

This very narrow focus fails to present the American people with a balanced macroeconomic picture. With the positive news shoved to the side, it?s no wonder that the latest ABC-Washington Post poll found that 54 percent disapproved of President Bush?s handling of the economy. Voters who want to avoid a distorted take on the economic facts ought to turn the network news off.

? Tim Graham
 

Strk

Lifer
Nov 23, 2003
10,197
4
76
And? There is nothing new here. People prefer to remain ignorant to things. If you cannot fit the topic into a headline, it will not be that important to most people.

It is sad, but that is how a vast majority of people seem to like their "news".

However, there are some decent news sites that always make sure it is known that prices aren't at an all time high. I have yet to read a MSNBC article about rising gas prices without seeing their little chart that maps out gas prices over the past century -- that include prices before and after adjustment for inflation.
 

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
Question for Riprorin: Is it even possible that Bush would do something wrong? Is it possible for the media to validly report news that reflects badly on Bush? It seems like in your world the only Bush news is good news. Correct me if I'm wrong about your view.

The network news tends not to be very in depth or very good. I blame this on the viewers, not on the producers. Let's face it, the producers are responding to the market. That's we have spin zones like O'Reilly where he tells people what to think: some people want someone to think for them. A democracy is only as strong as its members.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,268
126
What is really interesting and underreported is the price of steel. China is buying it at record rates, and it has skyrocketed, with up being the only way it's going.
 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
Dude have you tried to buy dairy products in the past year?

As for gas prices, those are record highs . . . just not a record compared to the gas crisis of the 1970s in current dollars.

In much the same way the Bush Regime is piling up record budget deficits but as a percentage of GDP they are not record. The real question . . . is it still bad? IMHO, the answer is yes.
 

Riprorin

Banned
Apr 25, 2000
9,634
0
0
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Question for Riprorin: Is it even possible that Bush would do something wrong? Is it possible for the media to validly report news that reflects badly on Bush? It seems like in your world the only Bush news is good news. Correct me if I'm wrong about your view.

The network news tends not to be very in depth or very good. I blame this on the viewers, not on the producers. Let's face it, the producers are responding to the market. That's we have spin zones like O'Reilly where he tells people what to think: some people want someone to think for them. A democracy is only as strong as its members.

Why does the press beat us over the head with bad news? Why did the NYT and LAT have front page stories on Abu Ghraib for 28 straight days? What new daily information justified this level of coverage?

Why are you so condescending to people who choose different news and information outlets from you?
 

SViscusi

Golden Member
Apr 12, 2000
1,200
8
81
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Question for Riprorin: Is it even possible that Bush would do something wrong? Is it possible for the media to validly report news that reflects badly on Bush? It seems like in your world the only Bush news is good news. Correct me if I'm wrong about your view.

The network news tends not to be very in depth or very good. I blame this on the viewers, not on the producers. Let's face it, the producers are responding to the market. That's we have spin zones like O'Reilly where he tells people what to think: some people want someone to think for them. A democracy is only as strong as its members.

Why does the press beat us over the head with bad news?
Because it sells papers.
 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Question for Riprorin: Is it even possible that Bush would do something wrong? Is it possible for the media to validly report news that reflects badly on Bush? It seems like in your world the only Bush news is good news. Correct me if I'm wrong about your view.

The network news tends not to be very in depth or very good. I blame this on the viewers, not on the producers. Let's face it, the producers are responding to the market. That's we have spin zones like O'Reilly where he tells people what to think: some people want someone to think for them. A democracy is only as strong as its members.

Why does the press beat us over the head with bad news? Why did the NYT and LAT have front page stories on Abu Ghraib for 28 straight days? What new daily information justified this level of coverage?

Why are you so condescending to people who choose different news and information outlets from you?
It appears that YOU seek news that merely confirms what you already believe. You don't want to be informed you want to be consoled (or reassured). I watch FOXNews at least once a day just to see how bad it is. PBS (News Hour) is basically the only TV source of quality news. In the print media you have to sample the NYT, WaPo, and say The Economist to get a good idea of what's really going on. On the radio virtually all news sux with the exception of NPR. NPR is about the only place you really hear "Fair and balanced" news b/c they typically interview relatively erudite proponents of each side of an issue. In addition, NPR is likely to reveal the true nature of many modern issues; ie . . . there's more than two sides to most issues.
 

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Why does the press beat us over the head with bad news? Why did the NYT and LAT have front page stories on Abu Ghraib for 28 straight days? What new daily information justified this level of coverage?

"Why does the press beat us over the head with bad news?"
As someone else said, it sells. It makes sense.

"Why did the NYT and LAT have front page stories on Abu Ghraib for 28 straight days?"
Because it sold. And it sold because we were having a war to supposedly bring democracy and justice to Iraq (after the WMDs didn't pan out) and so if we are abusing prisoners it really undermines the war effort.

"What new daily information justified this level of coverage?"
There were new pictures, new reports, and new reactions.


I answer your question, now please answer mine:

"Question for Riprorin: Is it even possible that Bush would do something wrong? Is it possible for the media to validly report news that reflects badly on Bush? It seems like in your world the only Bush news is good news. Correct me if I'm wrong about your view."
 

Riprorin

Banned
Apr 25, 2000
9,634
0
0
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Question for Riprorin: Is it even possible that Bush would do something wrong? Is it possible for the media to validly report news that reflects badly on Bush? It seems like in your world the only Bush news is good news. Correct me if I'm wrong about your view.

The network news tends not to be very in depth or very good. I blame this on the viewers, not on the producers. Let's face it, the producers are responding to the market. That's we have spin zones like O'Reilly where he tells people what to think: some people want someone to think for them. A democracy is only as strong as its members.

Why does the press beat us over the head with bad news? Why did the NYT and LAT have front page stories on Abu Ghraib for 28 straight days? What new daily information justified this level of coverage?

Why are you so condescending to people who choose different news and information outlets from you?
It appears that YOU seek news that merely confirms what you already believe. You don't want to be informed you want to be consoled (or reassured). I watch FOXNews at least once a day just to see how bad it is. PBS (News Hour) is basically the only TV source of quality news. In the print media you have to sample the NYT, WaPo, and say The Economist to get a good idea of what's really going on. On the radio virtually all news sux with the exception of NPR. NPR is about the only place you really hear "Fair and balanced" news b/c they typically interview relatively erudite proponents of each side of an issue. In addition, NPR is likely to reveal the true nature of many modern issues; ie . . . there's more than two sides to most issues.

Getting back to the topic, it pretty clear that mostly negative and misleading information about the economy is being reported by the netowrk news?

If we can't trust them to report accurately on objective matters like the historic price of gas, how can we trust them on anything?
 

Riprorin

Banned
Apr 25, 2000
9,634
0
0
"Question for Riprorin: Is it even possible that Bush would do something wrong?

Sure, just as it is possible for Kerry or you and I do something wrong.

Is it possible for the media to validly report news that reflects badly on Bush?

Of course.

It seems like in your world the only Bush news is good news. Correct me if I'm wrong about your view."

Why, because I'm calling attention to the misinformation about gas prices and the fact that the media is using it to overshadow the good news about the economy?
 

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
it pretty clear that mostly negative and misleading information about the economy is being reported by the netowrk news?


Really? How do you know that? What study are you thinking of? What's your evidence?

[/quote]If we can't trust them to report accurately on objective matters like the historic price of gas, how can we trust them on anything?[/quote]

You shouldn't trust any news source definitively. This goes for Fox too.
 

Riprorin

Banned
Apr 25, 2000
9,634
0
0
Originally posted by: Infohawk
it pretty clear that mostly negative and misleading information about the economy is being reported by the netowrk news?


Really? How do you know that? What study are you thinking of? What's your evidence?

If we can't trust them to report accurately on objective matters like the historic price of gas, how can we trust them on anything?[/quote]

You shouldn't trust any news source definitively. This goes for Fox too.[/quote]

Why does FOX News keep getting interjected into this discussion?
 

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
Originally posted by: Riprorin
"Question for Riprorin: Is it even possible that Bush would do something wrong?

Sure, just as it is possible for Kerry or you and I do something wrong.

Is it possible for the media to validly report news that reflects badly on Bush?

Of course.

It seems like in your world the only Bush news is good news. Correct me if I'm wrong about your view."

Why, because I'm calling attention to the misinformation about gas prices and the fact that the media is using it to overshadow the good news about the economy?


This is off topic but thank you for addressing my questions and not insulting me. Seriously, such posts can be a rare thing on this board. We need more straight answers like this.
 

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Originally posted by: Infohawk
it pretty clear that mostly negative and misleading information about the economy is being reported by the netowrk news?


Really? How do you know that? What study are you thinking of? What's your evidence?

If we can't trust them to report accurately on objective matters like the historic price of gas, how can we trust them on anything?


You shouldn't trust any news source definitively. This goes for Fox too.[/quote]

Why does FOX News keep getting interjected into this discussion?[/quote]

Because it's considered "different" by most people who talk about the media, both liberals and fox-fans. I used it because it shows I don't think any media should be entirely trusted, both the "mainstream" news and fox.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
What is really interesting and underreported is the price of steel. China is buying it at record rates, and it has skyrocketed, with up being the only way it's going.

Lowest common denominator. Gas prices are of interest to basically everyone because unlike steel we buy it directly on a regular basis and have signs dotting the landscape reminding us of its price. It's a much more pertinent price of concern for consumers, rather than something (relatively) esoteric and uninteresting to us like steel that we don't buy on a relative basis. You might get an "oh, that's interesting" from the average viewer if you tell them steel prices are going up, but since they aren't direct buyers of steel, the effect is minimal.
 

Perknose

Forum Director & Omnipotent Overlord
Forum Director
Oct 9, 1999
46,894
10,721
147
The full effect of high gas prices have yet to be fully felt. The ripple effect as they cause the price of everything shipped anywhere before being sold to also go higher will be huge.

"Although the effect on most people has been relatively modest, if the price of crude oil stays at $40 a barrel for a year, Mark Zandi of Economy.com said, it would reduce the nation's gross domestic product by 0.5 percent ? more than $50 billion a year.

The increases would have economic effects much like a new tax, a regressive one that falls particularly hard on those with the lowest incomes. Money that might have gone toward other purchases would be drained away paying for fuel, and indirectly, higher fuel costs would gradually add to inflation as they work their way through the economy, business people here said."

From the same article, a snapshot of the already emerging human cost:

Once a week for 15 years, Vera and Dale Salling have driven a 30-mile circuit from their home in the country through a northern Denver suburb, delivering meals to housebound older people. The Sallings themselves are getting on in years ? Vera is 74 and Dale 79 ? and they do it out of a quiet sense of duty to people who may have no one else who visits regularly.

But Mrs. Salling has begun to question whether they can continue volunteering for the Senior Hub's Meals on Wheels program.

"If the price of gasoline keeps going up and groceries go up, you have to give up something to be able to do something else," Mrs. Salling said, walking from an apartment complex after delivering a lunch of popcorn shrimp to Cecilia Barnes, 87. Two other drivers have already dropped out because they could no longer afford the rising cost of gasoline, the program's director, Marita Hafner, said."

What would a compassionate conservative do about this, Rip?
 

Riprorin

Banned
Apr 25, 2000
9,634
0
0
Originally posted by: Perknose
The full effect of high gas prices have yet to be fully felt. The ripple effect as they cause the price of everything shipped anywhere before being sold to also go higher will be huge.

"Although the effect on most people has been relatively modest, if the price of crude oil stays at $40 a barrel for a year, Mark Zandi of Economy.com said, it would reduce the nation's gross domestic product by 0.5 percent ? more than $50 billion a year.

The increases would have economic effects much like a new tax, a regressive one that falls particularly hard on those with the lowest incomes. Money that might have gone toward other purchases would be drained away paying for fuel, and indirectly, higher fuel costs would gradually add to inflation as they work their way through the economy, business people here said."

From the same article, a snapshot of the already emerging human cost:

Once a week for 15 years, Vera and Dale Salling have driven a 30-mile circuit from their home in the country through a northern Denver suburb, delivering meals to housebound older people. The Sallings themselves are getting on in years ? Vera is 74 and Dale 79 ? and they do it out of a quiet sense of duty to people who may have no one else who visits regularly.

But Mrs. Salling has begun to question whether they can continue volunteering for the Senior Hub's Meals on Wheels program.

"If the price of gasoline keeps going up and groceries go up, you have to give up something to be able to do something else," Mrs. Salling said, walking from an apartment complex after delivering a lunch of popcorn shrimp to Cecilia Barnes, 87. Two other drivers have already dropped out because they could no longer afford the rising cost of gasoline, the program's director, Marita Hafner, said."

What would a compassionate conservative do about this, Rip?

We'll survive just like we did in the Carter years when, adjusted for inflation, gas prices were much higher than they are today.

Personally, I think that we should be more agressively purusing alternative energy sources.
 

Thegonagle

Diamond Member
Jun 8, 2000
9,773
0
71
Is that the best Tim Graham and the media "research" center can do right now?

That's counterspin on a trivial detail, IMHO. (And it's not even factually inacurate.)
 

SViscusi

Golden Member
Apr 12, 2000
1,200
8
81
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Question for Riprorin: Is it even possible that Bush would do something wrong? Is it possible for the media to validly report news that reflects badly on Bush? It seems like in your world the only Bush news is good news. Correct me if I'm wrong about your view.

The network news tends not to be very in depth or very good. I blame this on the viewers, not on the producers. Let's face it, the producers are responding to the market. That's we have spin zones like O'Reilly where he tells people what to think: some people want someone to think for them. A democracy is only as strong as its members.

Why does the press beat us over the head with bad news? Why did the NYT and LAT have front page stories on Abu Ghraib for 28 straight days? What new daily information justified this level of coverage?

Why are you so condescending to people who choose different news and information outlets from you?
It appears that YOU seek news that merely confirms what you already believe. You don't want to be informed you want to be consoled (or reassured). I watch FOXNews at least once a day just to see how bad it is. PBS (News Hour) is basically the only TV source of quality news. In the print media you have to sample the NYT, WaPo, and say The Economist to get a good idea of what's really going on. On the radio virtually all news sux with the exception of NPR. NPR is about the only place you really hear "Fair and balanced" news b/c they typically interview relatively erudite proponents of each side of an issue. In addition, NPR is likely to reveal the true nature of many modern issues; ie . . . there's more than two sides to most issues.

Getting back to the topic, it pretty clear that mostly negative and misleading information about the economy is being reported by the netowrk news?
Why are you limiting it to network news? That applies to all types of news, remember the slogan is 'if it bleeds, it leads'. That applies to network, cable, local, papers, radio, tv, every form of news.
 

beer

Lifer
Jun 27, 2000
11,169
1
0
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Personally, I think that we should be more agressively purusing alternative energy sources.

Come now, and you call yourself a bush-ite??? You're not allowed to say that ;)
 

etech

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
10,597
0
0
Originally posted by: Perknose
The full effect of high gas prices have yet to be fully felt. The ripple effect as they cause the price of everything shipped anywhere before being sold to also go higher will be huge.

"Although the effect on most people has been relatively modest, if the price of crude oil stays at $40 a barrel for a year, Mark Zandi of Economy.com said, it would reduce the nation's gross domestic product by 0.5 percent ? more than $50 billion a year.

The increases would have economic effects much like a new tax, a regressive one that falls particularly hard on those with the lowest incomes. Money that might have gone toward other purchases would be drained away paying for fuel, and indirectly, higher fuel costs would gradually add to inflation as they work their way through the economy, business people here said."

From the same article, a snapshot of the already emerging human cost:

Once a week for 15 years, Vera and Dale Salling have driven a 30-mile circuit from their home in the country through a northern Denver suburb, delivering meals to housebound older people. The Sallings themselves are getting on in years ? Vera is 74 and Dale 79 ? and they do it out of a quiet sense of duty to people who may have no one else who visits regularly.

But Mrs. Salling has begun to question whether they can continue volunteering for the Senior Hub's Meals on Wheels program.

"If the price of gasoline keeps going up and groceries go up, you have to give up something to be able to do something else," Mrs. Salling said, walking from an apartment complex after delivering a lunch of popcorn shrimp to Cecilia Barnes, 87. Two other drivers have already dropped out because they could no longer afford the rising cost of gasoline, the program's director, Marita Hafner, said."

What would a compassionate conservative do about this, Rip?

Stop serving popcorn shrimp and go with something a little more economical but still nutritious and healthy.

Or as my parents do, raise a large garden and feed most of the people on their block from it.