Media to blame for global crisis

Michael Hedges March 11, 2009

People pay attention to themes they find relevant. They also pay attention to themes mirroring their beliefs and, often, fears. Media users have choices to fit those needs and interests. Media outlets, some at least, have choices, too

Speaking at the opening of the Cisco Systems Business Collaboration Center (March 9) Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi wagged his finger at the real problem in the global financial crisis: the media. Employers, he said, should “not read newspapers” and “not be influenced too much by the media.” Editorial offices are filled with “crazy prophets of doom.” Employers can become “discouraged” reading newspapers.

It wasn’t even a particularly unhinged moment for Mr. Berlusconi and most Italian media fixated on who might be the anointed choice for the presidency of public broadcaster RAI. On that Mr. Berlusconi made no announcement. After the infamous press conference with Russian Prime Minister Vladmir Putin last year where he “shot” at journalists, this hardly raised an eyebrow.

Mr. Berlusconi is not, of course, alone in criticizing critical media. Speaking at an informal meeting of European Union leaders (March 1) in Brussels Czech Prime Minister Miroslav Topolanekcalled the current economic outlook a “virtual debate,” created by media. Poland’s Minister of EU Affairs Mikolaj Dowgielewicz, at the same meeting, seized the same moment to ask Western European media to “stop writing about Eastern and Central Europe as a black hole.” 

It is a narrative common, seemingly, to the right, far right and unhinged right of the political spectrum that the current economic slump is media created. If only, they say, more good news was on the television people would borrow and buy, invest and spend. All of this ugly stuff would go away if people didn’t see it on the nightly news programs or daily newspapers.

There is, of course, another side to this. Maybe media did, indeed, play a significant role, if not in events but in setting a tone over the last decade, like a silent dog whistle, that commanded consumers, employers and investors to “irrational exuberance.”

No better example is the American business television network CNBC. Say what you will about the Wall Street Journal but most of the unhinged stuff stays on its editorial pages. Bloomberg, Reuters, The Financial Times and the Economist steadfastly follow the straight and narrow. CBNC is a fantasy art form.

“CNBC has much to answer for and be embarrassed about,” said one US media critic (MarketWatch March 10). “The network has gone overboard in its effort to dumb down business news for the masses. CNBC should know better by now and have a keener understanding of what its audience needs.” Another critic (Slate March 11) blasted CNBC’s “lunkheaded fratboys” treating economic news “like a football game.”

One of CNBC’s ‘money honeys’ Maria Bartiromo famously asked infamous, now indicted, ponzi schemer Allen Stanford “Is it fun being a billionaire?” In recent weeks CNBC’s line up of commentators have loudly and repeatedly mocked any economic advice not conforming to market liberal talking points from the last century. This thread has made CNBC the ‘go to’ source for fans of market liberal talking points from the last century.

Economists will debate for the next generation the mistakes underlying the current financial crisis. Some have advice for politicians – and the public – to be taken seriously now. Much of that is painfully complex.

That news media attempts to explain it all is good and beneficial. Simplifying – dumbing down – for the sake of ratings is irresponsible. Bleating to score favor is reprehensible.