The "He Said, She Said" Phenomenon

Many left-of-center media critics have repeatedly bemoaned the fact that the MSM has a tendency to frame partisan and ideological disputes, especially about economic policy, in the form of "One side thinks this, while another side thinks that." The problem with this approach is that it is often inappropriately applied in cases in which there really is a strong professional consensus on one side only. Reporting these as a "he said, she said" story is neither accurate nor objective.

"Walter Cronkite reports that Neil Armstrong has landed on the moon, but Bart Sibrel says that it was all staged on a Hollywood set. News at 11:00."

There are two reasons the media does this. First, they have been relentlessly criticized by the Right for years for  liberal media bias. As a consequence of this many in the media--eager to inoculate themselves from this criticism--have taken the opportunity to frame every Left-Right dispute as though each side were equally correct.

Second, most reporters are simply not very knowledgeable about economic issues, which are often quite technical, so "he said, she said" frees them from having to delve too deeply into a subject for whicxh they have little comfort or expertise.

I ran across a perfect example of this in today's USA Today. In a story entitled "Shutdown's risk to recovery disputed". Richard Wolf opens with:

"Would a partial government shutdown--or the spending cuts needed to avoid it--risk the nation's economic recovery and nascent job creation?
President Obama says it could. Republican leaders in Congress say it wouldn't. Economists are split roughly down the middle."

The story goes on to cite three sources claiming that the Republican plan to cut an additional 61 billion in spending would threaten the recovery. Who was cited? Goldman Sachs, Moody's Analytics, and the chairman of the Federal Reserve. None of these sources have any association with the Democratic Party of Liberal political causes.

But, the report goes on to note, "More conservative economists began firing back this week." The article cites two examples. The first is from Stanford University economist John Taylor. Who is John Taylor? He was Under Secretary of the Treasury for International Affairs during in the George W. Bush Administration. He was also a member of the President's Council of Economic Advisers during the George H. W. Bush administration, and Senior Economist at the Council of Economic Advisers during the Ford Administration. His role as a public intellectual to is essentially support whatever economic position that reflects current Republican views. For a complete run-down of Taylor's role as a reliable spokesman for party policy, see the results of Jon Chait's extensive research on the subject. Chait concludes that "John Boehner citing John Taylor as a supporter of his program is about as meaningful as John Boehner citing Mitch McConnell."

The second example is from Douglas Holtz-Eakin. Who is Mr. Holtz-Eakin?  He served as a Senior Staff Economist on President George H.W. Bush's Council of Economic Advisers and was Chief Economist for the Council of Economic Advisers to President George W. Bush. He was later hired as chief economic policy adviser to U.S. Senator John McCain's 2008 presidential campaign. Recently, Holtz-Eakin became president of American Action Forum, a Conservative think tank. Since joining American Action Forum, Holtz-Eakin has appeared on Fox News to argue against the Obama health care bill.

There you have it. The only two professional economists the USA Today article cited who question whether the suggested GOP House budget cuts would threaten the recovery are life-long Republicans with deep professional ties to GOP politics and the conservative movement. These are hardly non-partisan sources. The article could have just as well cited NY Times columnist Paul Krugman as a critic of the proposed GOP budget cuts, but what would be the point? His partisan credentials are as well established as his economic expertise.

So two deeply partisan spokesmen disagree with three non-partisan analysts. This is what USA Today refers to as economists "split roughly down the middle." Very roughly I'd say.