Comments on: Job Killers…They’re Everywhere!

By: Misaki

Misaki — Sun, 08 Jul 2012 20:49:15 +0000

>Financial reform?!? Unregulated financial markets are like a mass murderer…like the black plague…when it comes to jobs.

Easily understandable from the idea that “the reason for unemployment is a lack of national wealth.”

By: Michael

Michael — Thu, 05 Jul 2012 21:37:51 +0000

Sure, but journalists are under no obligation to quote a given two words in a source’s statement.

I’m serious — the journalists have to know how this game works. Why are they willing to be owned?

By: wkj

wkj — Thu, 05 Jul 2012 15:37:14 +0000

Apparently something like this is also happening in France. See today’s NYTimes A sectuib, where an article on the budget proposals of the new Socialist government states:

“The auditors (Cour des Comptes) urged the government to cut spending more than raise taxes, because the latter hurts economic growth…”

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/05/world/europe/french-socialists-raise-taxes-to-fight-deficit.html?ref=world

My French fails me.

By: Peter Dreier

Peter Dreier — Thu, 05 Jul 2012 09:19:44 +0000

Jared’s interpretation of our study is correct. Most reporters act like stenographers. They repeat the “job killer” accusations by business groups, Republicans, and conservative economists without bothering to check the veracity of these claims or to even get the “other side”. Even the standard “he said/she said” formula — quoting union, consumer and environmental advocates or liberal economits to challenge the “job killer” claims — would be an improvement. So there’s hardly any debate over the issue; it becomes conventional wisdom. The corporate lobby groups and their GOP friends are relentless and disciplined at repeating the “job killer” accusation without any facts on their side. Journalists let them get away with it by being lazy.

By: Rima Regas

Rima Regas — Wed, 04 Jul 2012 22:53:37 +0000

One of the conclusions must be that those whose mission it is to counter such usages *must* use everyday examples to drive home their point. Examples such as 401K plans, tainted peanut butter, ground beef and lettuce – all are examples that everyone can identify with on a personal level. Talking about regulations in general, or ones you can’t really see, is apparently too abstract.

By: wendy beck

wendy beck — Wed, 04 Jul 2012 21:52:21 +0000

“I could go on, but I’ve already treated this way too seriously. It’s classic Luntzian repetition without regard to facts or evidence. Unfortunately, it’s effective.”

Jared, I don’t think you can treat this too seriously. The Republican/Luntz memes are repeated endlessly, and as you said are very effective. Look at how many people, political and otherwise, now say “Democrat Party”. Now, either they don’t know when to use a noun vs. an adjective or there’s something else going on. The same with “death taxes” and “death panels” and now the tax as punishment/penalty meme (instead of “taxes are what we pay for a civilized society” ) takes on a new momentum what with the Supreme Court calling the penalty a “tax”. Language has consequences and repetition (not on ads, but on Sunday talk shows, interviews, op-eds, etc.) cost no money, but demands a receptive and cohesive political group.

By: Alex Blaze

Alex Blaze — Wed, 04 Jul 2012 17:50:26 +0000

Journalists are fundamentally conservative. They might not be explicitly partisan (unless they work for a Murdoch publication), but just look at their coverage of an issue like Social Security (“There were once 20 workers for every recipient of SS benefits, and now that ratio is reversed! No, I will not verify that claim before publication, because I love it like my first born son”).

I don’t remember if the stimulus had the “job killer” phrase attached to it. Was that too early in the Administration?

By: Alex Blaze

Alex Blaze — Wed, 04 Jul 2012 17:46:16 +0000

The usual response from liberals is to try to replicate this process, which never actually happens. It’s mostly because of money; conservatism’s basic goal is to increase the power of the aristocracy, and, not paradoxically at all, the aristocracy tends to have more money. More money means more speech, and we didn’t need the Bowers court to tell us that one.

Solving this problem isn’t going to come from the left making up stupid slogans. The left is fully capable of doing that, of course, but it takes money to get that kind of repetition in the mainstream media. The best we can do is try to increase people’s actual understanding of these issues. It’s a taller order, but we’re never going to win a bumper sticker war anyway.

By: Jared Bernstein

Jared Bernstein — Wed, 04 Jul 2012 12:23:32 +0000

There are a couple of other graphs in the study that are suggestive. Part of what’s happening here are sources are saying “job killer” more and thus getting picked up in the authors’ filter. It’s then up to the journalist to write a sentence as to the veracity of that claim. According to the study, that didn’t happen enough. But also, note the dominance of the WSJ–the main offender. They include editorials here, and this is a meme of the Journal’s extremely whacky editorial page.

See the paragraph right above figure 3.

By: Michael

Michael — Wed, 04 Jul 2012 04:52:33 +0000

Why do you think the media allows themselves to be chumped like this?