JOURNALISM and ECONOMICS: the Tangled Webs of Profession, Narrative, and Responsibility in a Modern Democracy By

JOURNALISM AND ECONOMICS: The Tangled Webs of Profession, Narrative, and Responsibility in a Modern Democracy by

Richard Parker

The Joan Shorenstein Center PRESS POLITICS Discussion Paper D-25 May 1997

PUBLIC POLICY Harvard University John F. Kennedy School of Government INTRODUCTION

The relationship between economists and where the answers that it does have are highly economic journalists should be symbiotic. They dependent on a particular set of assumptions have much to learn from each other. The media that might not hold true in reality. On the other are obviously an important source of economic hand, journalists quite naturally prize sound information, and economists have a considerable bites, answers which are definitive and provoca- amount of information about how the economy tive, that are clear and easily conveyed. In addi- works that should be useful to journalists. In tion, the search for what is newsworthy often addition, it is particularly important for econo- leads to stories which emphasize the novel or mists who are interested in influencing policy to the unconventional, which accentuates differ- have their findings effectively presented both to ences of opinion rather than areas of agreement. the public at large and to policy makers in par- On many issues important for the news, such as ticular. In principle, therefore, these professions business developments and market movements, are allies. Yet as Richard Parker convincingly economists have little to say. On other issues, demonstrates in this paper, their interaction where economists do have views, the profession works poorly. is often presented as divided, even when differ- Economists often find fault with the way in ences are relatively small, thereby conveying an which economic information is reported. impression of chaos. Sometimes they accuse the press of ignorance, For whatever reason, economists from acad- distortion and a misplaced emphasis on recent eme are rarely quoted. The press prefers the pun- numbers rather than trends. At other times, dits from Wall Street or Washington. In the rare however, journalists are faulted for claiming instances when they are quoted, the quotes trends without sufficient evidence. Journalists, often fail to capture fully the subtleties of what for their part, find much of what economists do the economists have to say. The result is that both incomprehensible and irrelevant. Many of the public in general and policy makers in partic- the issues with which academic economists are ular, for the most part, carry on without the ben- preoccupied, appear remote from the concerns of efit of the insights which economists have to average citizens. offer. Economists are, in fact, deeply concerned What can be done to improve this situa- about policy. It is common, even in the most tion? The answer is clearly important if econom- esoteric papers in professional journals, to find ics is to contribute to better public policy. It is statements which draw implications for policy. surely a necessary condition for effective report- Yet one can be sure that the likelihood that actu- ing that journalists become more economically al policy makers will be aware of these insights literate and better rewarded for doing so. It is is extremely low. One reason is that the lan- also surely necessary that economists undertake guage of economists is utterly unintelligible to research that is relevant. However, what is inter- the layman and both the economists themselves esting and most provocative in this paper, is the and journalists are poorly equipped to undertake suggestion that this might not be sufficient. the necessary translation. As an economist I res- Parker correctly points to the key actor often onated particularly strongly with the paper’s missing in this discussion — the public. emphasis on the inherent difficulties of commu- He suggests that even the clearest state- nicating information that is technically complex ment of what economists know about policy, to an untrained public. I would add that the written by journalists who are as well trained incentive systems which are set up to reward in economics as the economists themselves, economists and journalists inhibit effective com- might still not penetrate the public’s conscious- munication. In particular, in academe, a high ness unless the reporting can be captured by value is often placed on rigor rather than rele- the filters by which the public organizes and vance. Moreover, economists’ reputations processes information. In particular, the public depend not on the public but their peers. They imposes a moral and human interest frame on often feel uncomfortable providing answers news which economics, as a discipline, severely without footnotes, and compelled to hedge when underplays. The public, according to Parker, has the discipline itself has not resolved an issue or deeply rooted views which are at odds with the

Richard Parker 1 individualistic, rational- decision maker paradigm which underemphasizes the role of institutions and collective action. If Parker is correct, the implications are at once important and somewhat depressing. Unless the discipline changes in a most fundamental and not very likely way, no matter how brightly the light is shined by journalists, economists and the public may be doomed, like strangers passing in the night, never quite to meet. Nonetheless, Richard Parker is surely right that we are far better off understanding the reasons for these difficulties in communication, than in trying to ignore them. He is also right in pointing to the need for improved understanding of how the public learns from journalism and in particular how it interprets and evaluates economic news. All in all, this is a most stimulating paper. It is well worth reading, both for the central argument it makes and for the many percep- tive observations it contains.

Robert Z. Lawrence Albert L. Williams Professor of International Trade and Investment John F. Kennedy School of Government Harvard University

2 Journalism and Economics JOURNALISM AND ECONOMICS: THE TANGLED WEBS OF PROFESSION, NARRATIVE, AND RESPONSIBILITY IN A MODERN DEMOCRACY by Richard Parker ent ideas of what “better” economic coverage “ ecily, you will read your Political C should be, don’t themselves proffer clear-cut Economy in my absence. The chapter on the policy solutions. Fall of the Rupee you may omit. It is some- Quite frequently, as we all recognize, the what sensational.” most vocal critics of economics journalism are —Miss Prism, in Oscar Wilde’s groups with stoutly defined economic inter- The Importance of Being Earnest ests—businesses (or specific industries or companies), labor unions, farm organizations, con- “ inancial stories really bore me. It’s a F sumer or community groups, etc. or politicians, function of my own ignorance.” parties, or ideological factions associated with —Ted Koppel, ABC News them.2 Their complaints about how particular For most Americans, the press is the single stories interpret facts or intentions, or what most important source they have for informa- they see as systemic press bias, reflect their own tion about the economy—and explanations for definition of public interests. Quite often, the its performance. We’re all embedded in econom- public realizes such charges are themselves open ic relations, but our personal experience is only to debate—or at the very least can be viewed as an uncertain drop in the sea of economic actions part of the pull-and-haul of democratic competi- and assumptions around us. tion in the marketplace of ideas. But what does the press teach us? Or put Since World War II, however, these groups perhaps more importantly, what do we learn have been joined by an increasing number of from the press about the economy and econom- academic economists who charge journalism ics? It’s a question without easy answers—in with being insensitive to, or simply ignorant of, part because journalism’s relationship to mod- broad fundamental agreements that economists ern economics has served as an endless source themselves consider decided professionally, but of frustration, criticism, and calls for reform. ill-understood by journalists and the public.3 One recent academic study put the matter—or Because of economists’ expertise and ostensibly at least the accusation—bluntly: “Economics scientific neutrality (compared to interest journalism is charged with being factually slop- groups), their critique carries a different weight. py; oversimplifying, sensationalizing; focusing But is there in fact economic knowledge, widely on personalities over issues, discrete events over shared professionally, which through misreport- trends, the short-run over the long-run, and bad ing (more important than annoying economists) news over the good.”1 causes public harm? Economist Roger Brinner, That would seem to bode ill. After all, if head of the forecasting firm DRI/McGraw-Hill, we can’t rely on press reports about economic for example, believes there is. For one, in information, actors, and concepts, if various overemphasizing “bad news,” he charges that groups and individuals are right to find such the press was singularly responsible for slowing reporting confusing, errant, or at times mali- recovery from the 1991 recession.4 ciously misleading, how are we to act rationally Yet how the public views all this isn’t in pursuing our private or collective interests? nearly as clear as one might hope, since system- But, as many of us know, these complaints have atic research is either lacking or open to inter- their own problems. In a world of competing pretation. Beginning in the late Sixties, large interests, groups, and beliefs, your bias is my segments of the public—to judge by opinion truth. Your “efficient market” is my “union- polling—concluded that something was deeply busting”; his “clean air” is her “excessive regu- wrong in the play between economics and jour- lation.” Charges of press failure, because they nalism, though what it is, and where precisely come from diverse sources and have such differ- they place blame is less apparent. Yet there is no doubt that much of the public is deeply attuned Richard Parker is a Senior Fellow at the Shorenstein Center, to economic performance: polls have listed “the and heads its Project on Journalism and Economics. An economy” as the public’s number one concern economist by training, he has extensive experience in jour- in virtually every year since 1972, when it dis- nalism as well. placed Vietnam.5

Richard Parker 3 None of this debate by itself, of course, is journalism, including prior researchers’ findings new. Journalists’ coverage of economic issues about its performance, that could open a larger was the subject of contempt and angry criticism discussion about the interacting roles of econo- a century ago, when professional economics was mists, business, journalists and the public. still in its infancy—and when heated debate Specifically, the paper tries to do five over tariffs, protection, unionization, trusts, and things to advance discussion and research in regulation filled the air. Carlyle’s caustic dis- this area. First, it offers a preliminary catego- missal of “the dismal science” is, one must rization of concerns about economics journal- remember, not recent. ism by economists and select economic groups, What is new is the explosive growth in the especially business; second, it looks at journalis- volume and variety of economic and business tic responses, including concerns journalists news available to the public. Studies of network express about their own training in economics TV news, for example, found a doubling of the and business; third, it offers an assessment of time allotted to such stories in the 1970s. The various “remedies” for improving economic and growth of cable channels since has at least dou- business journalism; fourth, it looks at underly- bled that in turn. TV viewers can now opt for a ing models of learning associated with the pub- host of shows—Wall Street Week, Moneyline, lic and news; fifth it suggests a research agenda The Nightly Business Report, etc.—that in for further work. many ways perform for business and economics In no sense is this paper meant to be what programs such as Meet the Press and definitive; rather it is an introduction to issues Washington Week in Review offer for politics. in the field, and an invitation to conversation Newspapers have significantly expanded and and comment. upgraded coverage as well—creating separate Narratives, Knowledge, Audience, Power, business sections with significant economic and Purpose reporting, and now devote more front-section coverage to trade, savings, productivity, and How we tell stories plays no small part in wage issues than ever before. Separately, the the stories we tell. Harold Lasswell once business press has seen an upsurge of new titles famously observed that politics is about “who such as Worth, Inc., Euromoney, etc., as well as gets what, when, where, and why,” a definition substantial increases in circulation of that could stand equally well, in popular under- Businessweek, Forbes, Fortune, and the Wall standing at least, for economics.7 Indeed, popu- Street Journal. lar understanding often intermingles the two This growth in coverage of course has par- subjects intuitively, seeing in much of modern alleled increased public concern about the political life, an ancient yet continuing econom- American economy’s performance that dates ic contest between groups and classes over the from the 1970s. The emergence of stagflation, productive output and assets of society. repeated energy crises, eroding productivity and Professional economists start broadly from wages, the explosion of public debt and deficits, a different view. Economics for them is, first of the “tax revolt,” the “downsizing” of corpora- all, an attempt to provide a scientific, and ulti- tions, the deregulation and privatization move- mately politically neutral, explanation based on ments, the globalization of competition—and rationally-consistent laws and rules that expose with all this, an increasingly conservative, pro- the inherently mechanical, but nonetheless business, anti-government political climate— dynamic, character of economic transactions. have thrust economic news to center stage. Whether one dates the origins of this weltan- Not surprisingly, this shift in public atten- schauung to Smith, Marshall, or whomever, the tion—and the changes in economic journal- thrust over much of the last century has been to ism—have prompted a good deal of reflection. establish a “positive” core of theory distinct Quite apart from columnists, op/ed pieces, and from “normative” economic judgments, suscep- the complaints found in letters to the editors, tible to mathematical expression and algorith- there has been a tidy stream of activity—gener- mic manipulation.8 ally sponsored by foundations, and carried out Particularly since the late 1950s—when through academic studies—that has tried to pin- economists’ use of mathematics took a quan- point the causes of the public’s seemingly crip- tum leap with the deployment of econometrics, pled confidence in both professions.6 This paper game theory, linear programming, and the like— is meant to continue that effort. It attempts to professional economics has been viewed as examine several features of modern economics increasingly esoteric and daunting by the general

4 Journalism and Economics public. Yet in the past fifteen years or so, more with the middle-class impulse for evolutionary than a passing understanding of professional civic improvement, the superiority of “rational economics has grown ever-more important: as management,” and democratic limits on both one study puts it, public and private power. The New Deal added a second, enduring “A ‘course’ in macroeconomics has been the pre- reason for journalism’s focus on the political requisite for engaging in the politics of the 1980s. character of its “economics” reporting. In 1900, But it is clear that members of Congress, the government amounted to barely 4–5% of GNP; administration, and anyone who has wanted to today it encompasses over 35%. Size isn’t the enter into the national political debate is talking only change; governments today are purposive about subjects which assume knowledge of rela- (if not always rational) spenders, collectors, tionships that have not been common parlance in employers, regulators, subsidizers, and price- the recent past.”9 makers. Trillion-dollar budgets make real differ- ences in economic performance—and by virtue Yet even when the public—largely through of Keynesian beliefs, are meant to. And as “pub- journalism—has been taught to focus attention lic” activity, subject to democratic oversight and on concepts such as productivity, GNP growth, choices, these government actions also differ savings and investment rates, the size of from the ordinary activities of private business- deficits, and global competition, for example— es, even though collectively dwarfed in size by audience uncertainty about what to believe has the latter.12 been as much a characteristic as acquiescence. As a result, virtually all studies of econom- There is a host of obvious reasons for this. ic journalism note the high volume of coverage Very few Americans are trained as economists— devoted to government—in particular, to there are only about 20,000 economics PhDs Washington. Of course, this coverage takes a (and several hundred thousand economics BAs) wide variety of forms. First, journalists turn to in a country of 250 million. Even for economists, government as a source for seemingly straight- the discipline’s steadily-advancing mathematical forward economic “information.” Government requirements constantly raise the threshold for statistics on inflation, unemployment, housing, understanding the latest theories—as do increas- and the money supply are a staple of economic ing professional questions about its relevance.10 reporting—quite frequently unadorned by jour- Subspecialization adds an additional complicat- nalistic interpretation. Second, government ing factor, as it has in many professions. actions—its spending, regulation, tax, and trade Since the 1970s, moreover, economists policies—are prominent features as well. Not have been divided about what tenets of macro- just budget debates, but the various program- economics—the Keynesian paradigm since the matic debates which are a staple of governance 1930s—to embrace, and how they relate to are central to reporting as well. Third, govern- microeconomic theory, the substratum that ment “sources” form a critical part of reporting dates back at least to Marshall in “modern” on business, labor and consumer news that may form. Because macroeconomics has served since not by itself have a government “origin.” the New Deal as the principal construct overar- This use of government—its data, opera- ching public policy, this has fed deep divides tions, policies, and legislation—as narrative sub- about the area of most obvious importance to ject is in turn wrapped in a much more complex the public.11 narrative form. Journalism routinely interprets Journalism, as a result of both this academ- economic information in light of its impact on ic isolation and complexity, and its own narra- political actors and trends. The most obvious— tive focus on politics as the prime arena for and ostensibly potent—form lies in assessing interpreting conflict in complex societies, has Presidential performance and popularity as inter- consequently continued to rely heavily on a twined with aggregate economic performance. “political” dimension in its reporting of eco- The journalistic belief that, in the modern era, nomic information. By itself, this is hardly sur- Presidents are deeply “responsible” for U.S. eco- prising. As a modern profession, journalism is a nomic performance has in turn led more than child of the turn-of-the-century Progressive Era, one President to seek in various ways to influ- when the highly partisan and advocacy-oriented ence the “electoral” growth cycle as part of the journalism of the 19th century gave way to a economy’s business cycles in a myriad of ways.13 new model that sought to combine a scientifi- As a consequence, readers and viewers find cally-inspired drive for “objectivity” in reporting the “frames” through which “economic” news

Richard Parker 5 is presented almost ineluctably bound to “poli- the frequency of the error’s occurrence. More tics” and government. On one level, of course, importantly, in some instances, while the none of this is either surprising (or terribly dis- reporter may be violating elementary economic turbing) to professional economists. principles in a story, the story may in fact be Government data are a principal source of telling the reader something real and important information for academic research as well as about actual—not textbook—markets. An Econ reporting; economists acknowledge and 101 instructor may think the notion of “over- attempt to assess the impact of government supply” of doctors violates fundamentals in spending, taxation, and regulation on economic market-clearing, but good health economists— performance; the “government” sources used aware that the medical labor market contains a in reporting frequently are themselves profes- host of real-world rigidities—may find the sionally-trained economists, etc. Even the notion realistic, if insufficiently explanatory. press’s emphasis on the political dimensions of 2) “Numbers Reporting”: A second cause of “economic” news is recognized as important to consternation for economists lies in presenta- the polity, even if not the principal locus of tion of standardized economic data with either academic interest or understanding. no explanation—or (worse in some cases) brief, Described thus, however, economists’ overgeneralized explanation. Television appears residual concerns about economic reporting are particularly guilty of this; as one study of net- in fact overly minimized.14 One must be hesi- work TV’s economics reporting concludes: tant to talk too easily, of course, about “economists” as a unitary group—the simultaneous Only about half of all economic stories contain sta- existence of the Chicago and Harvard economics tistical information, and...only a handful of statis- departments gives the lie to that. Generally tics are reported on a regular basis. These are the though, what follows represents concerns com- rates of unemployment, growth and inflation, the monly held by a broad swath of the profession. index of leading economic indicators, and a few (The issue of complaints from economic “inter- other simple indicators such as housing starts, retail est groups” will be taken up later.) sales, factory orders and consumer confidence... 1) Botched Concepts 101: The perhaps stereotypical worries heard casually when econo- Though they underreport the “numbers,” news mists gather turn around what might be called shows do not shy away from interpreting what “botched concepts 101”—journalists’ explana- they mean. Analysis is part of journalism, but tele- tion of economic rules and processes through vision’s interpretations of economic developments statements that economists feel misrepresents tends to be episodic, shallow and formulaic, focus- basic microeconomic propositions. Any econo- ing on the most short-term effects....Linkages mist can easily recall his or her favorite howler, rarely go beyond the simplistic level of Dan and in fact a small academic literature has devel- Rather’s explanation that “the dropping dollar got oped documenting such mistakes.15 a lift today, and that pushed stock prices up on One typical study offers examples drawn Wall Street.” Seldom are statistics or trends placed from articles in the Wall Street Journal, Los in long term historical context, and there is little Angeles Times, and Milwaukee Journal in which discussion of the complex interdependencies the reporter a) misconstrues the effect of a com- among economic factors.17 modity’s price decline on demand, and its result- ing role in a subsequent price rise; b) describes a Here, the literature is more advanced quan- housing market’s price rise as affected by sup- titatively than the “botched concepts” litera- ply-and-demand, “as well as” by interest rates, a ture, with a great deal of counting and classify- strong economy, and foreign investors, implying ing over a relatively lengthy period. The authors their separateness from supply/demand; c) of the study just cited, for example, said their speaks of “oversupply” in the market for doc- report relied on review of more than 17,000 net- tors, without reference to the ways in which work economic stories broadcast between 1982 wage/price systems bid away such surpluses. As and 1993. the study makes clear, in each instance, the This seeming advance in quantitative mea- reporter violates elemental principles taught in surement, however, frequently belies other prob- any introductory economics course.16 lems. One is the methodology used by While illustrative of what seems to be jour- researchers: data coding is subject to subtle inter- nalistic ignorance, the inherent difficulty with pretation, and none of the major studies of eco- such anecdotal reports is that they don’t gauge nomic reporting have actually sought to assess

6 Journalism and Economics viewers or readers to judge what audiences take This tells us little about the other 1,700 away, versus what a trained coder sees. dailies, or electronic news, but serves as small A second is the significance of the govern- encouragement that all is not wrong with eco- ment’s data itself, a subject of intense debate nomics journalism. But here again, though, these days. One issue has to do with the fre- there is a peculiar epistemological assumption quency of reporting: until the late 1960s, much that runs throughout existing research on eco- of the government economic data reported today nomics journalism: the valid macromodel is dis- on a quarterly, monthly, or even weekly basis covered by trained economists doing textual was reported on an annual or semi-annual basis. analysis, without reference to what the paper’s Many economists—especially given the govern- readers take away. Audience—presumably the ment’s habit of releasing lagged “revised” esti- touchstone measure of journalism’s transmis- mates—question the value of frequency, espe- sion role—is absent. (This issue will be cially in light of journalism’s (and politicians’) addressed again later.) perceived misuse of the numbers. 4) News Effects on Financial and Yet a third dimension to the “number Commodity Markets: A fourth concern lies reporting” problem has to do with the data’s specifically in the impact of reporting on market intrinsic accuracy in two different senses. The behavior—particularly financial and commodity Consumer Price Index, for example, appears on markets, with their special (and seemingly mea- the verge of being revised downward because of surable) sensitivity to “news.” Here the work doubts about how it measures what it claims to has been rather specialized among financial measure. Another, longer-running, argument economists (or, to a lesser degree, microecono- over the Gross National Product asks a deeper mists’s work in information theory). As a result, question: does it measure what we want or need its implications touch less on what we’re here to know about national economic performance? concerned with—a broadly-defined public’s A final aspect to the analysis of the “num- understanding of economics, and more with the bers reporting” problem is more frankly ideolog- form and timing of information’s impact (deliv- ical: since the late 70s, when such research grew ered through journalism) on these specialized popular, partisan—particularly conservative— markets.20 non-profit groups have often done the studies to One must quickly note that the behavior “prove” liberal media bias, an interpretation of such markets is far from irrelevant. In the less-passionate academic studies believe past two decades, financial and commodity mar- obscures more complex findings.18 (We shall kets have been characterized by three features: return to this issue.) globalization, integration, and explosive growth 3) The Implicit Macro-model: A third con- in velocity and volumes, all of which exercise cern for economists treats a rather more compli- obvious—and powerful—impact on national cated subject: whether or not there is an implic- economies and policy sovereignty. With the it macroeconomic “model” of the economy used appearance of non-fixed exchange rates, in reporting, and whether it’s accurate and/or petrodollar recycling, emerging markets, and useful. That is, some researchers have asked an unprecedented trading activity based on innova- intriguing question, particularly for those econo- tions in computers and telecommunications, mists concerned about journalists’ understand- these markets have taken on complicated pow- ing of concepts underpinning much of public ers vis-a-vis traditional notions of the “real” policy: can one discern a coherent pattern to economy. These issues, though, are broadly a reporting (versus individual statement errors, separate issue from the vantage point of the lit- noted above) that might provide readers/viewers erature discussed here, and better taken up with a recognizable structure that also meets under the rubric of news and economic policy. minimal acceptance by economists? 5) News and Economic Policy: Here, Surprisingly little work has been done in arguably, lies the core of economists’ concern this field (given its rich potential), but one study about reporting, because it is here simultaneous- produced interesting results. By analyzing eco- ly that markets meet law and regulation, and nomic coverage from The Washington Post over economic theory meets both politics and public a ten-month period, two researchers were able belief—and the point at which we need to dwell to produce a macro-model of the U.S. economy for a moment. Few academic economists lack for which they judged not only internally coherent, evidence of seeming irrationality in policy choic- but quite acceptably recognizable to es, and many are all too prone to see public poli- economists.19 cy as the arena in which sound economic theory

Richard Parker 7 is turned into hash (or sausage, for those with a aggregate goals—not to mention the issue of Bismarckian cast), a consequence in which they “supply side” nostrums as a meaningful alter- believe journalism is deeply implicated. native to Keynesianism. Vivid debate over economics and “public This not unsurprisingly has bred uncertain- policy,” of course, is far from new—one need only ty, and uncertainty has done no little harm to turn to controversy over the 18th-century Poor the prestige and influence of economists, Laws or the 19th-century Corn Laws in England, because if there is a Progressive Era value which or over the National Road system, or National still obtains in journalism and the public’s mind, Bank, or tariffs-versus-free trade before the it is the authority of the expert. Uncertain American Civil War to see how well established experts—or visible disagreements among the subject matter (if not the modern forms) of experts—undermine the very confidence of the “public policy” was long ago. But up until Calvin 20th century in the idea of public rationality. Coolidge, American leaders lacked formal eco- That lack of confidence conjoins with the nomic advisers; after Franklin Roosevelt, none ways in which publics reach public judgment has. Creation of the Council of Economic that is affirmed in policies. The direct experi- Advisers shortly after World War II sanctified the ence of participants in an economy or society is unique place of this branch of social science over individual—and overlain by individual frames of the others in policy judgements.21 reference—that become collective in complex Robert Nelson, in a landmark article, has (and always problematic) ways. When a majority traced out this development—and argued that of young Americans tell pollsters they doubt economists have, since the 1970s, been caught in whether Social Security will meet their needs the midst of an “ideological era” unlike both the decades hence, they express individual fears Progressive Era, which marked economists’ first about whether collective obligations will meet systematic involvement in public policy, and the other collective obligations such as budget period from World War II to the Seventies, when deficits. Absent journalism—and the political they played a role in a “muddling-through” era and economic debates reported therein—they of policy meant to address the perceived interest- have no frame of reference for judgement. group pluralism of the times.22 This nervous relationship—between what The trickiness of labeling the post-Sixties an aggregation of individuals thinks it knows, period “ideological” (versus, say—among many and the outcome of collective choice and other easy choices—the era of Keynesian ascen- action—is where economists seek relevance, but dence beforehand) is obvious. But it speaks to a must face the constraints which late-20th cen- core peculiarity of the ways in which public pol- tury life places upon them. Public policy in the icy, and supporting public opinion, are formulat- current moment exhibits all the problems of ed that touches at the core of economists’ dis- collective “irrationality”, by economists’ stan- quiet, the question of alternatives, and journal- dards. Reforming welfare, downsizing govern- ism’s role therein. ment, an insistence on balanced budgets, health Journalism since the late 18th century, care reform—all are policy issues with deep, when it began disseminating the ideas of indeed primitive, foundations that touch poli- Smith’s Wealth of Nations to readers who tics, morality, idealized notions of the self and would never read the text, has been (apart from of the correct public domain. In all these issues, politics itself) the primary social arena in economics exercises a certain parametric, but by which knowledgeable publics have confronted no means central or decisive, role. one another over the organization of society Economists may be concerned about ongo- and its rewards.23 In recent years, apart from ing large budget deficits, but as a policy matter, issues of distinctly macro-managerial concern are divided about whether the current trend line such as measurement (and remedy) of the gap is positive in detail, or whether even balance per between actual- and full-employment budget se—as it is conceived by many political figures policies, or division over fully-fixed versus and large parts of the public—is the relevant snake-like exchange rates, the public has been measure. Health care policy is even more intri- asked to understand and affirm such funda- cately complicated because the valuation of mentals as “insufficient” savings or productivi- one’s health is by no means susceptible to so ty rates, the merits of financial, transportation, simple an expression as price, or even a range of and telecommunications deregulation, the ben- prices, especially when trade-offs are far from efits of GATT and NAFTA, and whether the apparent, and consumers are also voters. Fed ought to follow interest rate or monetary

8 Journalism and Economics Journalists consequently face a narrative made Paul Samuelson and Milton Friedman reg- crisis of their own, because they—and elite com- ular columnists; claims for “fine-tuning” munities—don’t feel economists can provide abounded, and economists were hailed for hold- determinative answers to any of these questions. ing the keys to eternal prosperity.25 Nowadays, This encourages journalistic citation of compet- magazines prefer “personal finance” columns, ing economic views (“economists disagreed and reporters call the denizens of Wall Street today about the policy’s effect, following its brokerage firms or Washington think-tanks for announcement...”), oftentimes mixing judgments comment on the latest policy or stock market of supremely different qualities, as it turns out. twist. Several recent studies of economics cover- Also, because the “political conflict” narrative age generally shows markedly little use of uni- almost always trumps the “economic,” journal- versity-based economists, despite a boom in the ism is captured by the range of politicians’ and volume of such coverage. partisan analysts’ views (“In reply to Some university economists take a baleful Reischauer’s comments, policy analyst Jude view of all this. Paul Krugman, a rising young aca- Wanniski insisted...”), again without clear pre- demic “star”, has particularly taken to task those sentation of professional ability or partisan bias. he calls “policy entrepreneurs”—pseudo-econo- “Solving” this particularly thorny connec- mists in his eyes who’ve hoodwinked the public tion between economists and journalists—and and political elites into a host of misguided their competing narrative demands—is by far notions, from industrial policy to managed trade. the most complicated, and most important of Krugman’s critique—often smart, but full the issues in the field. Yet it is perhaps the least of blistering ad hominem assaults—fails howev- susceptible to easy recommendations. er to fully credit several other reasons why acad- 6) News and General Economic emic economists’ stock as news sources has fall- Performance: A sixth concern, similar to the en, having little to do with perfidious “policy fourth, but much broader for policy, treats news hustlers.” One factor is the sheer number of effects on economic performance generally—in people now working in public policy, and the particular on consumer behavior. Cited earlier, specialization that has come with that growth. economic forecasters such as DRI’s Roger Washington, for example, is full of current and Brinner have complained that journalism’s pref- former government economists and policy ana- erence for “bad news” has prolonged recessions lysts whose familiarity with specific programs or slowed recoveries. It is a charge business or legislation equals or exceeds all but a handful leaders, business publications, and recently- of university-based economists. Reporters on defeated politicians have made a staple criti- deadline find these specialists easy to locate, cism, although academically-satisfying evidence highly current on the latest turn in policy, and is thin. also often deeply insightful into the politics sur- The critical missing link to the argument rounding the policy. is proof that the public, after years of exposure, There is a second reason, which Krugman has somehow failed to notice the press’s prefer- notes, but nowhere solves in terms useful to ence for news of the bank that was robbed over journalists or the public. Since the 1970s, the the bank that wasn’t. After all, there’s wide- hegemony of Keynesian macro-beliefs has been spread polling evidence that the public recog- eroded by what appears to journalists and the nizes and deplores press “negativism” generally; public as a cacophony of voices—New Classical, why—even if one grants the “bad news” thesis, Post-Keynesian, Monetarist, Neo-Keynesian, and critics argue, aren’t Brinner and others guilty of Supply Side—that fail the role of confident post hoc, ergo propter hoc without more com- “authority” that journalists use as a narrative pelling, and closely-reasoned evidence? If dis- convention when they query “specialists” for counting is a feature of rational economic exis- interpretive comments on programs or issues. tence24, why isn’t it at play in the public’s han- This cacophony—what one economist dling of news? friend wryly calls the shift from the one true 7) Which Economist Shall We Listen To?: Catholic faith to a thousand Protestant ones— Finally, there is the issue of which economists has its costs. As Albert Rees, president of the the press talks to, a matter some economists Sloan Foundation (and a leading funder of eco- consider more than an issue of amour-propre. nomic research) has warned economists, Beginning in the 1960s (now wistfully called the “Golden Age”by Keynesians), Time put John Serious newspapers carry long accounts of the dis- Maynard Keynes on its cover, and Newsweek putes among economists of these various views,

Richard Parker 9 and rival economists berate one another in the let- groups, corporations, and the state. Or it may ters to the editor. The newspaper reader no more refer to economic dimensions of issues that we understands the difference between these schools tend to speak of otherwise as social policy, as than he understands those between the rival fac- legal disputes, as class conflict, or political tions of the Palestine Liberation Organization. His competition. The term “economic” in these impression is that economists are divided on all instances tends frequently to the voluminously issues into irreconcilable warring sects. Since inclusive, and hence awkwardly—and controver- economists themselves cannot agree on anything, sially—ambiguous. When is environmental he reasons, no attention should be paid to them.26 policy an economic matter? What are the economic components of defense spending? How Note here that Reese is addressing the split is racial or gender inequality, or reverse discrim- among full-fledged academics—not Krugman’s ination, an economic issue? To what degree divide between the “academics” and “policy should legal decisions rest on economic princi- hustlers.” ples? Is the single-parent family a social, moral, Robert Solow somewhat more dispassion- or economic issue? ately than Krugman offers yet a third reason why These aren’t just matters for social scien- academic economists play less than the role they tists or policy makers to sort out, but cut to the might hope for in public debates over policy, and heart of democratic speech and reasoning, indeed receive thereby less journalistic attention: lie at the core of the democratic polity. Decisions taken for all sorts of reasons other than econom- . . . . good economics is bound to be complicated. ic have economic consequences, but are they to Good economics is also bound to be uncertain. be judged—or even described—as economic? Even where the underlying principle is clear its For journalists, this is no small matter. As application to particular circumstances is never noted, the journalist seldom uses academic direct. Too many other things are always happen- “economics” to tell stories to an audience—but ing at once. If there is anything that the politician to what degree does “understanding economics” [or journalist, for narrative reasons—ed.] does not help better tell the story? need it is complexity and uncertainty. Just the To judge by the volume and durability of opposite is called for. This demand for simplicity their complaints, business is the most vocal and confidence is strengthened by the fact that the group believing that “economic ignorance” in political process is rarely interested in narrow eco- journalists causes specific, measurable harm. At nomic policy for its own sake. What we think of as one foundation-sponsored convocation where the heart of the matter is often seen by the players corporate executives talked directly with jour- themselves as subsidiary to issues of distribution, nalists, the report’s summary (befitting the orga- party-politics, and image. You can hardly expect nizers’ purposes) was quite frank about this the President, the Senator, or the House antagonism: Committee Chairman to tolerate distraction from the frying of his own fish by the complexities and . . . the business community is becoming more uncertainties of economic analysis . . .27 vocal in its attacks on the press. Of late it feels particularly embattled and embittered. What Solow goes on to observe, “Probably there was once a relatively quiet adversary relationship is nothing to be done about this. It goes with is fast becoming an openly antagonistic relation- the territory of democratic politics. ship between two powerful and self-righteous Nevertheless there may be occasions for the institutions. marginal improvements and they should be wel- comed and followed up whenever they arise.” To the businessman, too often the antagonism boils down to this—business builds up; the media tear The Journalistic Complaints of Non-Economists down. To the media, too often the antagonism boils Economists aren’t the only ones with com- down to this—business always hides its wrongdo- plaints about “economics” journalism. Here the ing; only the media penetrates this stone wall . . . issues, however, are both richer in their complexity and less susceptible to classification as The businessmen’s complaints are not unlike those simply “economic” in the sense that profession- of government officials and politicians: the media al economists often use the term. is too powerful; they always get it wrong; you can- Economics, in this broader meaning, not get a fair shake; they don’t write about all the encompasses economic activity—by individuals, good things we do but only the bad; sensationalism

10 Journalism and Economics sells newspapers; they don’t understand what they What Journalists Think, and Do, About are reporting; they oversimplify.28 the Problem None of these complaints—whether from At the most elemental level, the issue is of economists or non-economists—is unfamiliar to accuracy about specifics involving individual journalists; indeed many journalists seem at stories—hardly an exclusive province requiring times no less bothered by their profession’s cov- economists’ judgment. A quotation isn’t correct, erage of economic issues. Elie Abel, former a longer explanation is wrongly condensed, the dean of Columbia’s Journalism School, has juxtaposition of statements or examples places a called business and economics reporting “the businessman or company in an unfairly critical most disgracefully neglected sector of American light. Here the economist can add little, because journalism.” Writer Dom Bonafede, slightly the issues go directly to core journalistic canons more literary in his imagery, is no less harsh. about objectivity, balance, and fairness. Business reporters historically, he writes, have But behind these complaints lies a deeper all too often rightly been considered by peers as suspicion, that points toward what many “city room castoffs and journalistic drifters, bit believe is a systemic bias among reporters and players in a raw profession, fulfilling a melan- editors against business. Here a good deal of choly task requiring little talent and less imagi- research has confirmed that, in terms of self- nation in a cramped corner of the newsroom.”30 description, the press sees itself as “liberal,” and ABC News reporter Jeff Greenfield prefers a does in fact harbor suspicion about the trans- slightly more ingenuous metaphor. parency of motives, and self-interestedness, of “Economics,” he avers, “was once the blind the business community. date of journalism. It was better than staying But some of the research goes further to home, but not by much.”31 argue that such personal views inherently does Journalists, however, are thinking of a bias coverage of business. Burton Pines, in Out great deal more when they talk about “econom- of Focus—a detailed study of network TV’s por- ics” coverage than what economists usually trayal of economics and business in 1992—bit- mean. A quick look at either a newspaper’s terly concluded that business section or its front pages tells why. Topically, and in terms of interpretive frames, . . . a random tuning-in of TV was more likely to “economics” to journalists is heavily shaped (as give a viewer information that distorted or under- discussed earlier) by a deep-rooted sense of mined free enterprise than supported it...In [1992], “politics”; but it is also shaped by journalism’s network newscasts aired 68 hours, 34 minutes on use of “business” as its other important narra- economic policy and business matters. Most of tive frame. this, some 56 hours, 32 minutes, was background “Business” pages—or increasingly, business material, often factoids of little importance. But sections—are the routine repository for these much of the reporting was explicitly or implicitly stories. These sections have surprisingly stan- didactic. Of this, 6 hours, 59 minutes misinformed dard organizational form, despite ever-changing viewers about the facts or principles of the stories. They typically consume a third to half American economy and business compared to 5 their space (or more) simply publishing financial hours, 3 minutes which portrayed the free enter- tables—reporting the activity of stock exchanges, prise economy accurately and fairly.29 mutual funds, and bond, currency and commodity markets for the previous day. Descriptive The precision here, suggesting a careful reporting concentrates on large publicly-traded analysis quantitatively of news bias, initially corporations, both local and national—their offers a strong case for bias; however, it loses mergers and acquisitions, quarterly sales data, some of its persuasiveness as one follows Pines’ personnel changes, new product announcements argument. By the end of his book, he offers an (and occasionally, legal troubles). Added to that appendix of “what to read” for journalists wish- are government reports—routine announcements ing to improve their “understanding of free of economic data series (unemployment, housing enterprise.” The list consists of just six starts, inflation, trade, etc.), Fed activities, and authors—Milton Friedman, Henry Hazlitt, the like. And then, usually depending on activity Charles Murray, Martin Anderson, Robert levels, shorter or longer stories on the financial Bartley, and George Gilder. It is not a diversity market movements and their meanings. of views meant to inspire confidence in Pines’ In recent years, as more talent and overall judgment. resources have flowed into such coverage, char-

Richard Parker 11 acteristics of these stories have changed. One is ones, that because of their size are presumed to their origin. Historically, business news relied have a significant impact (versus the constant heavily on press releases and wire service copy, swirl of changing fortunes exhibited by millions with only cursory independent reporting by of smaller, privately-held firms). Given the enor- journalists; nowadays, while press release-based mous restructuring of American industry in news still dominates the total number of stories, recent years, these have been staple features on turning up as shorter articles and news items, front pages. the section lead and longer articles tend to be A final type is a “political-corporate” trend or impact stories, about international hybrid, particularly relevant to industries such competition, industry or market profiles, and as telecommunications, entertainment, finance, high-technology reviews. Smaller and newer transportation, energy, and the like which have companies—part of the renewed national inter- been the focus of deregulation in the past few est in “entrepreneurs”—get more coverage, par- years. These stories inevitably invoke fresh cor- ticularly if they’re in “hot” technology fields, as porate activity—say, the acquisition of three TV (in an age of affirmative action) do women and networks this summer—into multi-story exami- minorities working in corporations. Labor nations of the “significance” of the move for the unions figure only marginally—usually when a industry, the economy, government policies strike occurs, while consumer-reform-oriented such as antitrust, and the inevitable American and public interest group-generated stories are concern about corporate concentration. (As jour- down markedly from the 1970s.32 nalistic forms, these are perhaps closest to a This “story environment” seems to be business magazine style pioneered by Henry part of a larger trend, especially in print jour- Luce and Fortune in the 1930s, but seldom uti- nalism, that views “interpretive reporting” lized in newspapers until the 1980s.) (compared to the old “who, what, when, where, Television, meanwhile, with the growth of why” style) as a premium print can offer in cable and independent channels, has done sever- competition to radio and TV news. The al things: its main network evening newscasts province for years of magazines—whether the carry more stories about the economy generally, newsweeklies, business magazines, or select as well as corporate and industry news. Cable publications—this style of reporting appears channels such as CNN and CNBC now offer now much more regularly both on the front “business news” programs, as well as interview pages and as section leads. and panel discussion programs about economic The front pages are reserved generally for and business affairs. The explosion of “news- four types of stories. First are the aforementioned magazine” shows—following the “60 Minutes” “trend” stories, in which journalists seek to model—have also increased coverage of the evaluate large economic/business themes—wage “Three C’s” on television, though hardly a like stagnation, global competitiveness, savings number of serious “trend” stories.33 issues, growth rates, etc—and which editors con- Since the 1970s, these changes have fed a clude merit the wider exposure of the front page. growing consensus among journalists at least Second—and most obviously painful to that, taken together, things are improving—the management—are what we might call the cor- quantity and quality of coverage, the training porate “Three Cs”—crime, crisis, or conflict sto- and specialized skills of reporters and editors, ries. “Boesky (or Milken, or . . .) Arrested,” etc. Still, the question of how much remains. “Government to Indict . . . ,” etc. represent the One study in the late 1980s conducted for the first; the Exxon/Valdez, Dow Corning, A.H. Ford Foundation interviewed 4,552 working Robbins stories typify the second; “Caterpillar reporters and editors, and concluded: enters second year of strike” is a not unusual third. It is, incidentally, these types of stories Journalists themselves are aware of the poor that almost inevitably produce the greatest hos- state of public economic knowledge, and they tility and anguish among executives over press recognize the need to improve the quality and coverage, given especially the latitude for jour- coverage of business and economic news. Over nalistic interpretation of the “crisis” stories. 80% of the organizations surveyed had increased A third category is the corporate “secular such coverage in the last five years; 67% believed fortunes” story: “ATT to cut 50,000 jobs,” “Last that coverage of stories with economic content US TV Manufacturing Plant Closes,” “IBM to should be increased even more. Reporters and take losses on PC business.” These portray editors alike, however, are dissatisfied with the changes in individual corporations, usually large quality of coverage. More than 50% feel their

12 Journalism and Economics firms do a “fair” or poorer job of business/eco- Curing What Ails Them: The Pedagogical Model nomics coverage, while 80% believe that general reporters are not well equipped to handle busi- “I formally reject the proposition that increasing ness/economics content. The poor quality of cov- the economic understanding of the public is an erage also affects the quantity of news provided, impossible task. I just wish I had stronger empiri- for 62% of the editors surveyed said they would cal evidence on which to base that rejection. increase coverage if the quality of business/eco- Nevertheless, I find the job of educating the public nomic reporting improved.34 on economic issues and controversies as important and urgent as any the economist has, if we are to The report itself goes on to document what make democracy work, or work better. it views as deeply problematic: Discovering the economic truth comes first, but A) Formal economics training seems lack- truth is of scant value unless the public and the ing: 55% of business/economics reporters are government respect it and use it. And I believe journalism majors, vs. 4% who majored in eco- that economists can do much more to improve nomics and 6% in business. Only 23% have economic understanding if they really give it the taken more than three economics courses, while energy, resources, and thought the job requires.” 17% have had a similar number of business —Leonard Silk, New York Times courses (96% say they wish they had taken Economics Editor, to the more such courses earlier in their careers). AEA annual convention, 1985 B) Experience levels are lower: Business/economics reporters averaged 10.2 The model for almost all the remedies pro- years in journalism, vs. 15 for other reporters posed to date rests on increasing economic (They were twice as likely to be female as knowledge and communications skills for econo- well—39%, vs. 18% on other beats). mists and journalists, which—it is thought—will C) They’re likely to do less “digging” to get increase the knowledge of the audience, and stories: Business/economics reporters are twice hence “improve” civic understanding (and there- as likely to rely on press releases, and spend less by, the functioning of democracy). In this basi- time (24%) than others (31%) doing research for cally classroom idea of learning transposed to their story. They also relied less on wire stories the press, the problem is viewed as a failure to and government hearings. They rely much more devise appropriate means for transmitting under- on individuals in private companies for techni- standing between three economic “ideal types” cal questions, much less on academics or gov- (in the Weberian sense)—the economists as ernment sources. knowledge producers, the reporter as distributor D) They’re likely to feel undervalued: (and translator), and the audience as consumer. when controlled for education and experience, This diagnosis, as far as it goes, sees a these reporters in fact make less than those on limited set of key problems. For the econo- other beats. Perhaps related, 43% feel mists, the failure is one of “relevance,” of business/economic reporting isn’t well support- making issues or modes of thoughts which ed by management.35 economists value apparent and plausible to the All this suggests a major gap of sorts, but it journalist, and hence to the general public. also invites reflection. For example, by lumping The late Leonard Silk, himself a PhD econo- together several thousand journalists from wide- mist and former economics columnist and ly different-sized and kinds of papers, do this business editor at the New York Times, set out survey’s aggregation techniques obscure whether the case in a speech before the American recent heavy hiring pulled down average experi- Economic Association.36 ence, whether lack of management support was In it, he outlined what about economists’ greater at smaller papers, whether “less digging” professionalism impedes their ability to com- reflected business section norms or those of the municate through the general press. The first, front page? One can also wonder what sorts of he said, was “hermetics”—the preference for business or economics courses reporters wish technical jargon and talking too much within they had taken, which in turn has invited reme- the caste. The second was “ambivalence”— dy through “improvement” that takes several refering to economists’ support for self-interest recognizable paths. as a motive in the market, but alarm at its role For the Ford Foundation, however, the (individual or collective) in politics. A third was results were persuasive—and exemplary of an “flawed science”—economics’ failure at predic- issue to which we next turn. tion, basically, but also a certain inadequacy of

Richard Parker 13 explanation when simple models met complex economists and journalists take as the public’s economic realities, as well as a willingness to ignorance and/or disinterest in economic hide political bias or preference behind scien- matters? tism. Combined with a public that was both For one, because journalism (like the pub- “lazy” and “disillusioned” by repeatedly unmet lic) gives the broadest possible meaning to the claims by economists, he admitted to sounding term “economics,” incorporating business news, discouraged. socio-economic trends and problems, and the He then attempted to overcome some of simple reporting of governmental and financial that discouragement both by the peroration market indices, it focuses on much more than quoted above, and a series of recommendations classroom theories and theorists. The demand that essentially counseled greater academic for academic economists and their theories is modesty, commitment to public teaching, and a overshadowed by the constant demand for news rejection of the idea that a dispassionate and and analysis of market changes, the latest gov- value-neutral science could solve the problem of ernment policy debate, the newest legislative ideology and interests. turn and the like—issues at which others offer Journalists, in turn, have been encouraged superior information, or at least information to strengthen their own knowledge of academic organized in forms readily utilized by journalists. economics as a means for better reporting not When a group of Bagehot Fellows con- only views of economists, but better interpret- structed a textbook/reader for journalists on ing economic performance and issues in debate business and economics in 1991, for example, over public policy. Most of the recommenda- economics took the decidedly back seat. Two- tions have followed four suggested lines of thirds of the text focused on reading balance improvement: 1) hiring changes—place greater sheets, using SEC documents, where to locate emphasis on hiring economics and/or business industry information, and simple elements of majors as reporters and editors; 2) pre-employ- story construction; the chapter on economics ment training—emphasize more skills prepara- displayed no knowledge of recent innovations tion in economics and business reporting at (Samuelson and Friedman were the newest theo- journalism schools; 3) mid-career training— rists mentioned), spent much of its time provide short-term programs designed to explaining simple economic indicators and Fed improve formal understanding of economics operations, and even oddly insisted that John through intensive seminars, etc.; 4) status/ Kenneth Galbraith “virtually managed the reward—ensure more recognition, pay, and French economy after World War II.”37 prestige are given to reporting the For another, surprisingly little work has economics/business field. been done to measure audience effects from Over the past two decades, a number of ostensible changes in journalists’ knowledge of programs—frequently foundation-sponsored— formal economics. Reporters interviewed after have emerged to fill in the perceived lacunae in both short- and long-term “training” programs journalists’ economic knowledge. With burgeon- in economics journalism judge themselves “bet- ing demand for business and economics ter informed,” but no one has actually analyzed reporters, there has been a pattern of—though coverage quality, or audience learning, on a pre- perhaps not a systematic attempt at—increasing and-post basis. hires with at least BAs in both fields. At the Economics: From a “People’s Science” to graduate level, surveys of journalism schools Professional Discipline indicate both an increasing number offering courses in business and economic reporting, as well as growing numbers of course cross-regis- “Reasonable men” reach “reasonable” conclusions trations at business schools and economics in circumstances where they have no prospect of departments. Organizations such as the applying classical models of substantive rationali- National Association of Manufacturers or the ty. We know only imperfectly how they do it. We Kaiser Family Foundation have also offered know even less whether the procedures they use in training programs—mostly short seminars—or place of the inapplicable models have any merit— sometimes mid-career fellowships available to although most of us would choose them in prefer- journalists interested in specific fields such as ence to drawing lots. The study of procedural health policy, trade, and the like. rationality in circumstances where attention is But how accurately does this “classroom” scarce, where problems are immensely complex, learning model address overcoming what both and where crucial information is absent present a

14 Journalism and Economics host of challenging and fundamental research prob- “moral values,” “powerlessness,” and “human lems to anyone who is interested in the rational impact.”40 Media, they argue, share these frames allocation of scarce resources. and use them to communicate—but to importantly different degrees, and in importantly dif- —Economist Herbert Simon38 ferent ways.

Simon, who won the Nobel Prize in part The media tend to employ technical language for for pioneering work on “satisficing” behavior as the economic frame, while people are far more an alternative to economics’ beloved notion of likely to overlay the frame with a moral or evalua- rational “maximizing,” wasn’t specifically tive dimension . . . Approximately half of our inter- addressing problems in economic journalism viewees framed at least one issue in economic when he spoke; but he could have been. His terms but they tended to put a human face on it. remarks point to a singularly neglected aspect of The media’s numbers are reflected back as human the debate over the quality of economic report- impact, values, or moral judgments . . . Greed was ing: we have very little clear understanding of seen as motivating various actions by governments how and what the public learns from the news. and individuals . . . Often, individuals saw the prof- In the burgeoning academic field of com- its going to powerful others who could not always munications theory, that lack of understanding be trusted...our interviewees also included the has not been for want of trying. The twentieth media among the powerful others motivated by century’s two great boom industries in commu- greed. Several of them employed an economic nication have been propaganda and advertising, frame to suggest that the media’s main concern in the former associated with coercive states, the issue coverage was rating or profits.41 latter with manipulative markets—and for many years formed the central concern of communica- This constant conjunction of “economics” tion theorists. Starting in the 1960s, theorists with other frames, particularly the “moral” and shifted their efforts to focus broadly on what “human interest” frames, suggests at least two came to be called journalism’s “agenda-setting” key insights into how audiences learn from jour- function. It was widely argued that while journalism. First, audiences carry with them fully- nalists cannot consciously dictate what we elaborated frames that run at odds in several key think, by virtue of selecting the issues and actors ways to the “frames” professional economists which received prominent and recurrent atten- use to teach economics—and sometimes seem tion, they “set the agenda” of public debate. to want journalism to convey. Economists value More recently, there has been increasing dispassion, observable rules, and the absence of recognition that publics themselves approach individuals in their narratives; they avoid wher- the news with their own agendas and organizing ever possible telling stories that use words like filters, through which journalism’s “agendas” “greed” or “power,” and hardly ever mention must pass. The emphasis has been on determin- individuals by name as key economic actors, so ing what the “frames” of media presentation highly do they prize their own narrative about are, what “frames” audiences bring to their abstract economic rules and forces.42 What absorption of media messages, and the gaps and framing analysis seems to suggest is that such contrasts between the two. Coupled with new efforts run tangentially, and perhaps at odds, to attention to the factors involved in life-long the modes through which people assimilate and learning, “framing” analysis has in turn become retain information, thereby complicating the part of what the discipline refers to as “social learning process itself. learning” or “social cognition” theory.39 Second, it suggests why critics find journal- There are several relevant lessons (or chal- ism—particularly TV journalism—weighted lenges) here for those concerned about economics toward coverage of what the critics define as journalism. The first is evidence that “econom- “bad news.” Audiences tend to validate such ics” (in the loose sense used by the public, not bad news because it meets their own doubts or academics) is in fact one of the primary “filters” skepticism about the world generally, but in audiences use to screen information. Political particular about their experience of and confi- scientists Russell Neuman, Marion Just and Ann dence in the economy’s performance—and the Crigler, for example, have identified five domi- reliability of leaders and professionals (including nant filter categories in their empirical studies of economists) when called upon to predict future audience learning through news, which they performance of the economy or the benefits of identify, along with “economics,” as “conflict,” specific economic policies.43

Richard Parker 15 There’s an intriguing additional dimension some people come to favor widespread govern- to public skepticism over economic perfor- ment involvement in the economy while others mance to be found in research on public percep- oppose it, and how journalism affects commit- tions of risk. Repeated studies have found that ment to those views. the public routinely assigns a higher risk of dan- Separately, different researchers have added ger to man-made projects than to natural phe- an additional, intriguing dimension to this nomena. Nuclear power plants, toxic spills, etc. learning question. Without fully accounting for are considered much more likely to occur and why, they have shown that—contrary to earlier cause harm than scientific evidence suggests researchers’ concerns—such beliefs display, in they will; earthquakes, hurricanes, etc., by con- aggregate societal terms, remarkable stability trast, are routinely given lower probability esti- over time. Individuals change their views, but mates for occurrence and harm than scientific within the society as a whole, the mean com- data say they hold. But why should this be so? mitment to particular views changes only very Public policy analysts and statisticians, con- slowly when it changes at all. fronted with such evidence on a broad scale, This understanding of public opinion—as have concluded that public trust of such man- an expression of public beliefs and “frames” made projects inherently contains deep doubts used to interpret news—is relatively new to (or at the very least, skeptical uncertainty) about social science. For many years after World War “authority” and “honesty,” that directly relates II, researchers focused on instability and short- to confidence and relative powerlessness. term change in public opinion; only recently have they gone back to look at patterns docu- How Then Do We Learn? mented over as much as half a century. When There’s a good deal of evidence today that they have, it is constancy, not change, which we do in fact learn from the press—but in ways has stood out. quite unlike the straightforward pedagogic mod- This has enormous implications for the els that many who debate economics journalism economics journalism debate, particularly in understand. The mode is called “unintended” or policy reporting. Political scientists Benjamin “accidental” learning, and its proponents Page and Robert Shapiro, in The Rational believe that we acquire bits of information and Public, for example, argue that stable prefer- understanding from the press in haphazard, but ences and beliefs are a characteristic of the not unsystematic, ways. Those fragments are entire post-World War II period: then tentatively assimilated into what the researchers call learning schemas, stored, Opinions about employment, inflation, taxes, and “retested” against new information for consis- energy, for example, reacted in systematic and tency and usefulness, sometimes forgotten and consistent ways to objective trends in prices and then relearned—and finally only gradually unemployment rates. Because of the predomi- retained as part of a larger cognitive architecture nant stability of opinions, we concentrated a for life-long learning. good deal on patterns of preferences within and As “frame” theorists now understand, the across issues, showing that the American public press consequently is never simply providing makes coherent distinctions among policies and information to audiences in a void, but pressing holds opinions that fit together into backing for its reports through complex, interactive narra- individualism and a limited, but substantial, wel- tive structures—or “frames”—that serve as key fare state. organizing modules. Moreover, from the audience’s vantage point, the usefulness of frames is The high and generally stable public support for in no small part to filter out the vast amount of government action on Social Security, education, information for which the audience has no jobs, medical care, the cities, the environment, use—in one researcher’s words, “taming the consumer safety, and the like—and willingess to tide” of information constantly flowing over us. pay taxes for these purposes—is especially striking. Over a lifetime we encounter endless We noted a number of dips during the late 1970s in streams of new information, that flow past us support for taxes, regulation, and social spending without disturbing much about those basic (especially on welfare, redistribution, minorities, frames. What’s lacking for a theory of economic and medical care), but in nearly every case this learning through journalism is an understanding “right turn” of opinion was small and temporary; of how different groups in a society come to opinion never altered much and soon rebounded in value key elements in a frame—how for example, a liberal direction. In other cases (eg., spending on

16 Journalism and Economics Social Security and education), there was hardly Set against (or alongside) this worldview, of any change at all or even a continued movement course, is the pageant of the journalist, and his in a liberal direction . . . Throughout the Reagan or her role in it. Fundamentally, it is a democra- years and on into the Bush years, Americans tic worldview, composed of citizens who are favored more, not less, spending and action on vir- only secondarily economic agents. This citizen- tually all these economic welfare programs.44 ry participates in democratic activity as a means Presumably what we see in such research of fulfilling deeply-held desires for freedom, are expressions of the “frames” used by the pub- equality, and opportunity. Bound up in and by lic to come to public judgment. Unlike the often institutions ranging from family to custom to violent swings in leadership and elite arenas civic obligation, the citizenry looks to journal- (including the press), as policies become com- ists to play a crucial role as information- plex instruments of competing group power, provider as a means to democratic action. large segments of the public opt for a conserva- In a cynical age such as ours, one can dero- tive consistency that one might infer feels gate such models—but journalists, no mean cyn- deeply wounded and offended by Washington’s ics themselves at times, find this picture of hyper-partisanship of recent years. This viola- civic life a—if not the—central raison d’etre for tion of a public desire for consistent, and demo- their work. Born out of a Progressive Era under- cratically-reflective, policies—as much as the standing that objectivity must blend with con- specific policies and politics themselves—may stant civic improvement and democratic renew- be playing no small part in public disillusion- al, to surrender such beliefs is in some sense to ment with politics and the press (as well as give up on journalism as a profession. economists and other professionals). But since neither journalists nor economists plan to give up their professions—and the What Then Ought to be Conveyed? narratives, logics, and audiences that go with Even if we could fully understand how them—the issue remains of what then ought to people learn about economics and the economy be conveyed. Both “frame” theory and research from the news, what should we conclude? in the stability of public opinion suggest that a What, in other words, ought we to desire as an starting point different from most thinking to alternative, if we are discontent with the pre- date on economics journalism—including the sent state of affairs. classroom model of improvement—would be Economists aren’t a particularly good two-fold. source of answers—or at least we need to recog- One is an empirical effort to understand nize that many of their answers collide with how, and why, audiences learn from journalism. deeply-rooted customs, values and beliefs that Expansion of the “frames” analysis to carefully have proved remarkably powerful in shaping our subdivided social and economic groups and collective pictures of democracy, mutual obliga- classes would expand our understanding not tion, power, and institutions. The economic only of how citizens use information to formu- assumption of the individual as a rational, self- late judgments on economic issues, but also give maximizing figure, the suspicion about motiva- us greater insight into how the competing tion for collective action, a complex and very frames interact. The work already done in this imperfect understanding about information feed- area of news learning has, for the most part, back, its costs and benefits, and a highly-styl- been focused on politics, with little large-scale ized minimalist description of the impact of work conducted on economic learning.45 institutions on decision-making issues all make Alongside this, better research on how dif- for a worldview appreciated by a far smaller ferent media affect learning would add to our audience than otherwise might be the case. understanding. Neuman, Just, and Crigler have To be sure, in recent years, with both found that, contrary to easy assumptions, TV debates over “rational expectations” theory, and enhances understanding and retention of certain a growing interest in the role information plays learning experiences, compared to print. in economic decisions—as well as “rational Whether or not this applies to economic con- choice” theory’s invasion of political science, cepts, however, is less clear—and needs investi- there have been advances. But for the time gation. Sahr has also found that TV learning being, they remain largely at the abstract model- about inflation and unemployment also is relat- ing level, unavailable to policy-makers, or for ed to income and occupation, but not to sex and those interested in interpreting their applied level of education—which suggests patterns for meaning to the general public. research as well.

Richard Parker 17 There also needs to be an effort to better differ emphatically in the frequency and empha- understand how individual knowledge, group sis with which they use them. “Conflict” rates affinity, and the notion of delegated power work high with journalists; “morality” and “human together. That is, a good deal of existing litera- effects” rate much higher with audiences. Is ture on economic journalism presumes the there some way in which journalism can sustain superiority of better public information and its canonical commitment to “objectivity” understanding, but nowhere specifies what an while serving this public hunger for differently- ideal distribution might look like. Assuming organized forms of information? that we needn’t all acquire economics PhDs, are Because the American economy seems to there varying normative levels of understand- be entering a new era—or at least leaving behind ing—perhaps distributed by education levels— many of the coordinates of an older one—these that we can at least hypothesize as more coher- issues are of lively and critical interest to all of ent measures of improvement, compared to an us, not just economists and journalists. Perhaps unspecific notion of a unitary public’s learning? it is frustrating to end with more questions than This in turn raises both empirical and the- answers, but in part it may be a result of having oretical issues of what we expect from an asked questions in the past which don’t address “informed public.” From the emotive effect of the issues of greatest importance. Ronald Reagan’s “Are you better off now than Economic journalism will increase in vol- you were four years ago?” to political scientist ume, variety, and importance in the coming Edward Tufte’s “When you think economics, years, as change in the economy imposes both think elections; when you think elections, think trying challenges and painful dislocations on the economics,” observers of American political dis- economic lives of millions of Americans. Much course have long assumed the deep interaction of the past complaints about it seem to have between voters’ perceptions of economic perfor- born little fruit—in part, this paper has argued, mance and political outcomes and alignments. because we perhaps haven’t framed our concerns But how do voters assess economic perfor- in fruitful ways. Economists will continue to be mance, and by what criteria? Are voters assess- tempted to predict the future, and will often ing past performance—ie, voting “retrospective- mispredict it; journalists will err through haste, ly”—or looking forward, ie, voting “prospective- simplification, and misunderstanding particular ly”? To what degree do voters vote on their per- issues, data, and concepts. Economically impor- sonal pocketbook, or on a judgement about tant groups and actors will continue to feel national performance? When evidence suggests aggrieved. the latter, are they engaged in “irrational” What we need better to understand is how behavior, or calculating long-term self interest? the divergent and multifaceted lives of our fel- To what degree is economic voting assymetric— low citizens—that we compress at risk into a punishing “bad” results more than rewarding nominal and homogeneous “public”—not only “good” ones? learn from, but evaluate, and come to act upon, We also need to understand better not only the information economics journalism provides. the individual “frames” through which citizens To date, we’ve not done an especially good job process journalistic information, but the group of it. There is room—and reason—to do more. cues that help them interpret it. What are the modern equivalents of the “barber shop” or “water cooler” discussions—where we test not only what we have read or seen in the media, but seek feedback and interpretive understanding of their meanings? In an age of allegedly increasing isolation, are the declines not just in party affilation, but in mediating civic institutions—described in Robert Putnam’s “Bowling Alone” and elsewhere—so fundamentally weak- ened as to be ephemeral to individual judgment? Finally, are there shifts in the emphasis of specific “frames,” or selection of cueing terms or concepts, by journalists that would aid in any of this? Neuman and Just argue that journalists and the public share common sets of frames, but

18 Journalism and Economics ENDNOTES

1. Stephen Reese et al., “Economic News on 8. The positive-normative distinction, taught in vir- Network Television,” Journalism Quarterly (Spring tually every introductory text, has been nonetheless a 1987), p. 137. contentious one for years. Veblen’s attack on Marshall is one of the earliest statements, followed by Talcott Parsons’ rejoinder to Lionel Robbins’ claims for it in 2. Cf. Tom Goldstein, Killing the Messenger: 100 the Thirties. Friedman’s famous restatement of the Years of Media Criticism (New York, 1989) for a rep- case remains the post-war classic, but see Rosenberg, resentative overview. Progressive Era writers especial- Machlup and McCloskey for dissent. ly were vocal about “capture” of the press by business interests (Will Irwin’s eleven-part series for McClure’s in 1912 is perhaps the most famous, and 9. G.R. Boynton and Christophe Deissenberg, later shaped the thinking of the Hutchins “Models of the economy implicit in public dis- Commission’s 1946 report). Conservative writers, course,” Policy Sciences,v. 20:1987, p. 129. though, were by no means less active, especially when they concluded criticism of capitalism was 10. Cf. the AEA’s officially-chartered “Report on the linked to Communist leanings. Cf. Percy Crosby’s Commission on Graduate Education,” and its statisti- bitter Three Cheers for the Red, Red, and Red cal annex, “The Education and Training of Economics (McClean, Va., Freedom Press; 1936) for an especially Doctorates,” Journal of Economic Literature, Fall, rancorous example. Richard Hofstader’s Anti- 1991, for a frank measure of the troubling intramural Intellectualism in America offers examples across a problems in the profession. According to it, 61% of longer span of time. graduate economics professors agree that economics training “over-emphasizes mathematical and statisti- 3. Cf. David Colander and A.W. Coats, The Spread cal skills at the expense of economics.” An even of Economic Ideas (New York, 1993), Part II, esp. higher number think training needs major revision. Robert Solow’s article, “How economic ideas turn to The commission itself concluded that “graduate pro- mush”. grams may be turning out a generation with too many idiot savants skilled in technique but innocent of real economic issues.” 4. Roger Brinner, in John Labate, “Bad News Hurts Too,” Fortune, March 23, 1992, p. 26. The motif of the press as economic Cassandra recurs throughout 11. Bell and Kristol’s The Crisis in Economic Theory the business press. Cf., for representative examples, (New York, 1980) offers a slightly dated, but still use- Kenneth Fisher, “Misery in the Media,” Forbes, ful introduction to the non-specialist. For a more January 20, 1992, p. 127; John Lawrence, “Business recent—and troubling—look at division and disarray News: The Terrible Truth,” Fortune, April 25, 1998, in economics, see the American Economic pp. 145-149; and James Sites, “The Press, the Association’s detailed examination of graduate eco- Economy, and the Nation’s Future,” Vital Speeches of nomic education, the “Report of the Committee on the Day, March 1, 1978, pp. 290-294. Graduate Education in Economics,” cited above.

5. Reese et al. 12. Obviously, corporate activity isn’t unexamined, whether by SEC oversight of public corporations, or more generally by journalism. Still, individual enter- 6. For a view of foundations’ evolving role in eco- prises escape routine public surveillance in a way nomic policy and theory, see James Smith, The Idea unknown to government. Brokers (New York, 1991). For a synopsis of major foundations’ current activity in the field, see Caren Grown, “Federal and Foundation Support for Economics and 13. The classic arguments for the “electoral” eco- Policy,” unpublished memorandum (Chicago: nomic cycle are William Nordhaus, “The Political MacArthur Foundation, 1994). For a survey of conserva- Business Cycle,” Review of Economic Studies v. 42 tive foundations’ recent activity, though focused on the (1975), pp. 252-273, and Edward Tufte, Political “law and economics” movement, see Alliance for Control of the Economy (Princeton, 1978); for criti- Justice, Justice for Sale (Washington, DC, 1993). cisms of the thesis, James Alt and Alec Chrystal, Political Economics (Berkeley, CA; 1982). 7. Harold Lasswell, “The structure and function of communication in society,” in Bryson, ed., The 14. For a lively discussion, see Colander and Coats, Communication of Ideas (New York, 1948), p.XX. eds., The Spread of Economic Ideas (New York, 1993).

Richard Parker 19 15. The Journal of Economic Education, primarily insight into the role of the press since the 18th centu- concerned with economics pedagogy at the college ry in disseminating economic theories. and high school level, also looks at journalistic coverage, and offers a rich sample of such literature from 24. Not to mention a tenet of faith among followers economists’ vantage point. of this year’s Nobel Laureate, Robert Lucas and the “rational choice” school. 16. John Cochran and R. Michael Brown, “What’s Wrong Here?,” Economic Inquiry (July 1989), pp. 25. James Tobin’s The New Economics One Decade 541-545. Older (Princeton, 1974) offers an excellent, brief rendition. 17. Robert Lichter and Ted Smith, “Bad News Bears,” Forbes Mediacritic (Fall, 1993), p. 82. The 26. Albert Rees, “The Marketplace of Economic article references two longitudinal studies, one by the Ideas,” AEA Papers and Proceedings (May 1986), Media Institute covering three one-year periods p. 138. between 1982 and 1987, and a second by the Center for Media and Public Affairs that periodically analyzed coverage in 1987-88 and continuously since 27. Robert Solow, “How Economic Ideas Turn to 1990. Mush,” in Colander and Coats, The Spread of Economic Ideas, p. 82. 18. Cf. David Harrington, “Economic News on Television: The Determinants of Coverage,” Public 28. Howard Simons and Joseph Califano, Jr., eds., Opinion Quarterly v. 53 (1989), pp. 17-40. Harrington The Media & Business (New York, 1979), pp. ix-x. reviews the literature, and in passing illustrates the coding and bias problem of the conservative 29. Burton Pines, Out of Focus: Network Television researchers. By coding, for example, movements in and the American Economy (Washington, DC; 1994), unemployment only by their direction, one study exco- p. 6. riated network coverage as “bad news”, because it reported on unemployment when it was declining. This was in 1983, however, when unemployment was 10%. 30. Abel and Bomafede, cited in Chris Welles, “Economics and Business Reporting,” in Hollie Kluge, Columbia Knight-Bagehot Guide to Business 19. G.R. Boynton and Christophe Deissenberg, and Economics Journalism (New York, 1991), p. xiii. “Models of the economy implicit in public discourse,” Policy Sciences v. 20 (1989), pp. 129-151. 31. Greenfield, in Matthew Miller, “The Case Against Ted Koppel,” The Washington Monthly (May, 20. For examples, cf. Jacob Frankel, “Flexible 1989), p. 35. Exchange Rates, Prices, and the Role of ‘News’,” Journal of Political Economy, v. 89, no.4 (1981), pp. 665-705; Craig Hakkia and Douglas Pearce, “The 32. The great majority of small dailies, of course, Reaction of Exchange Rates to Economic News,” lack the resources described here. One study found Economic Inquiry, V. XXIII, October 1985, pp. 621- that a majority of business sections had fewer than 3 636; Torben Andersen, “Credibility of Policy staffers. Cf. Kent MacDougal, Ninety Seconds to Tell Announcement,” European Economic Review v. 33 It All: Big Business and the News Media (Homewood, (1989), pp. 13-30. IL: 1981), p. 24.

21. Harvard economist Robert Barro—a determined 33. The newsmagazine shows’ emphasis on “Three critic of the New Deal legacy—likes to puckishly C’s” has been painful to many in the corporate com- remind fellow economists that U.S. economic per- munity, it should be noted—though hardly without formance fared best during those several (though rel- some chagrin among journalists as well, after dust- atively brief) periods when the CEA chairmanship ups over “Dateline” and GM trucks, or “20/20”’s was empty. encounter with the tobacco industry.

22. Robert Nelson, “The Economics Profession and 34. James Hamilton and Joseph Kalt, “A Summary of the Making of Public Policy,” Journal of Economic the Report to the Foundation for American Literature, v. XXV (March, 1987), pp. 49-91. Communications and the Ford Foundation,” (Cambridge, MA; 1987), p. 5.

23. Wayne Parsons, The Power of the Financial Press (Rutgers, NJ; 1989), esp. chs. 1 and 2, offers detailed 35. ibid, pp. 5-7.

20 Journalism and Economics 36. Leonard Silk, “Communicating Economic Ideas and Controversies,” AEA Papers and Proceedings, v. 76, n.2 (May 1986), pp. 141-144.

37. Pamela Hollie Kluge, Columbia Knight-Bagehot Guide to Business and Economics Journalism (New York, 1991). For the Galbraith role, see p. 161.

38. Herbert Simon, “Richard T. Ely Lecture,” American Economic Review (May, 1978), p. 3.

39. Cf. Albert Bandura, “Social Cognitive Theory of Mass Communication,” in Jennings Bryant and Dolf Zillman, Media Effects: Advances in Theory and Research (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ; 1994).

40. Cf. Neuman, Just and Crigler, Common Knowledge: News and the Construction of Political Meaning (Chicago, 1992), esp. Ch.4.

41. Ibid, pp. 63-64.

42. Donald McCloskey, The Rhetoric of Economics (New York, 1985) elaborates at length, though somewhat controversially, on this point.

43. One stark expression of the public’s deep appre- hension of power and elites generally appears in a recent New York Times/CBS poll. Asked to agree or disagree with the statement, “The government is run by a few big interests looking out for themselves,” 79% agreed. Asked further whether “the average citizen had a chance of being heard,” 75% disagreed. Cf. New York Times, August 25, 1995, p. 2.

44. Benjamin Page and Robert Shapiro, The Rational Public: Fifty Years of Trends in Americans’ Policy Preferences (Chicago; 1992), pp. 169-170.

45. Cf. Shanto Iyengar and Donald Kinder, News That Matters: Television and Public Opinion (Chicago, 1987); Russell Neuman, The Paradox of Mass Voting: Knowledge and Opinion in the American Electorate (Cambridge, MA; 1986); and Lance Bennett, News: The Politics of Illusion (White Plains, NY; 1988) for examples. Robert Sahr, Television News and Public Policy (New York, 1992) takes up a limited analysis of economic news and learning, but from very small samples.

Richard Parker 21 OTHER PUBLICATIONS FROM THE SHORENSTEIN CENTER

DISCUSSION PAPERS

“Press, Polls and the 1988 Campaign: An Insider’s Critique,” Dayton Duncan. August, 1989. Discussion Paper D-1. $2.50 “The Politics of Character and the Character of Journalism,” Judith Lichtenberg. October, 1989. Discussion Paper D-2. $1.75 “Reflections on Television’s Role in American Presidential Elections,” Lawrence K. Grossman. January, 1990. Discussion Paper D-3. $1.50 “School for Scandal,” Sissela Bok. April, 1990. Discussion Paper D-4. $1.00 “Window to the West: How Television from the Federal Republic Influenced Events in East Germany,” Dieter Buhl. July, 1990. Discussion Paper D-5. $1.50 “Lies in Ink, Truth in Blood,” Linda Jakobson. August, 1990. Discussion Paper D-6. $2.00 “Expanding the Public’s Right to Know: Access to Settlement Records under the First Amendment,” John J. Watkins. December, 1990. Discussion Paper D-7. $1.75 “Changing Lanes on the Inside Track: The Career Shuttle Between Journalism, Politics and Government,” James McEnteer. May, 1991. Discussion Paper D-8. $1.75 “Different Strokes: Public Broadcasting in America and Australia,” Glyn Davis. July, 1991. Discussion Paper D- 9. $2.25 “The Russian and Soviet Press: A Long Journey from Suppression to Freedom via Suppression and Glasnost,” Alexander Merkushev. August, 1991. Discussion Paper D-10. $2.00 “The Media in Europe After 1992: A Case Study of La Republica,” Sylvia Poggioli. September, 1991. Discussion Paper D-11. $3.25 “Notes for the Next Epidemic, Part One: Lessons from News Coverage of AIDS,” Timothy Cook. October, 1991. Discussion Paper D-12. $2.25 “The Nixon Memo,” Marvin Kalb. July, 1992. Discussion Paper D-13. $2.00 “The American Pattern of Freedom of the Press: A Model to Follow?,” Santiago Sanchez Gonzalez. August, 1992. Discussion Paper D-14. $2.25 “When Policy Fails: How the Buck Was Passed When Kuwait Was Invaded,” Bernard Roshco. December, 1992. Discussion Paper D-15. $3.25 “TV Violence, Children and the Press: Eight Rationales Inhibiting Public Policy Debates,” Sissela Bok. April, 1994. Discussion Paper D-16. $3.00 “From Bhopal to Superfund: The News Media and the Environment,” Sanjoy Hazarika. September, 1994. Discussion Paper D-17. $2.00 “Hispanic Voices: Is the Press Listening?,” Jorge Quiroga. January, 1995. Discussion Paper D-18. $3.00 “Paint-By-Numbers Journalism: How Reader Surveys and Focus Groups Subvert a Democratic Press,” Alison Carper. April, 1995. Discussion Paper D-19. $2.75 “The Nigerian Press Under the Military: Persecution, Resilience and Political Crisis (1983-1993),” Adeyinka Adeyemi. May, 1995. Discussion Paper D-20. $3.75 “Post-Communist Eastern Europe: The Difficult Birth of a Free Press,” Bernard Margueritte. August, 1995. Discussion Paper D-21. $3.25

“The Next War: Live?” Barrie Dunsmore. March, 1996. Discussion Paper D-22. $3.50 “The Foreign News Flow in the Information Age,” Claude Moisy. November, 1996. Discussion Paper D-23. $2.50

22 Journalism and Economics “Spreading the Word: The KGB’s Image-Building Under Gorbachev,” Jeff Trimble. Feburary, 1997. Research Paper D-24. $3.00

RESEARCH PAPERS “Tritium and the Times: How the Nuclear Weapons-Production Scandal Became a National Story,” William Lanouette. May, 1990. Research Paper R-1. $2.75 “Sound Bite Democracy: Network Evening News Presidential Campaign Coverage, 1968 and 1988,” Kiku Adatto. June, 1990. Research Paper R-2. $2.00 “Parsing the Pentagon Papers,” Frederick Schauer. May, 1991. Research Paper R-3. $1.75 “Through the Revolving Door: Blurring the Line Between the Press and Government,” Lewis W. Wolfson. June, 1991. Research Paper R-4. $2.50 “The Church, the Press, and Abortion: Catholic Leadership and Public Communication,” Michael A. Russo. December, 1991. Research Paper R-5. $5.50 “An Economic Theory of Learning from News,” Marion Just, W. Russell Neuman, Ann Crigler. July, 1992. Re- search Paper R-6. $2.25 “Two Commanders-in-Chief: Free Expression’s Most Severe Test,” Betty Houchin Winfield. August, 1992. Re- search Paper R-7. $3.25 “The Role of the News Media in Unequal Political Conflicts: From the Intifada to the Gulf War and Back Again,” Gadi Wolfsfeld. June, 1993. Research Paper R-8. $2.25 “Shadowboxing with Stereotypes: The Press, The Public, and the Candidates Wives,” Karlyn Kohrs Campbell. Research Paper R-9. $2.25 “How Voters Construct Images of Political Candidates: The Role of Political Advertising and Televised News,” Montague Kern and Marion Just. April, 1994. Research Paper R-10. $2.50 “Transmitting Race: The Los Angeles Riot in Television News,” Erna Smith. May, 1994. Research Paper R-11. $2.75 “Ownership of Newspapers: The View from Positivist Social Science,” C. Edwin Baker. September, 1994. Re- search Paper R-12. $2.75 “The Future of Global Television News,” Richard Parker. September, 1994. Research Paper R-13. $2.75 “The Media, the Public and the Development of Candidates’ Images in the 1992 Presidential Election,” Dean Alger. October, 1994. Research Paper R-14. $2.50 “Busted By the Ad Police: Journalists’ Coverage of Political Campaign Ads in the 1992 Presidential Campaign,” Michael Milburn and Justin Brown. July, 1995. Research Paper R-15. $3.00 “Framing Identity: The Press in Crown Heights,” Carol B. Conaway. November 1996. Research Paper R-16. $3.00 ”The Wisdom of the War Room: U.S. Campaigning and Americanization,” Margaret Scammel. April, 1997. Research Paper R-17. $3.50

WORKING PAPERS “Real-Time Television Coverage of Armed Conflicts and Diplomatic Crises: Does it Pressure or Distort Foreign Policy Decisions?” Nik Gowing. June 1994. Working Paper 94-1 $12.50

“Discourse and its Discontents,” Frederick Schauer. September, 1994. Working Paper 94-2. $10.00 Please direct any publication inquiry or request to: The Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics, and Public Policy John F. Kennedy School of Government Harvard University Cambridge, MA 02138 ATTN: Publications Telephone: (617) 495-8269 • Fax: (617) 495-8696 Web Site Address: http://ksgwww.harvard.edu/~presspol/home.htm

The Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy John F. Kennedy School of Government Harvard University 79 John F. Kennedy Street Cambridge, MA 02138 Telephone (617) 495-8269 • Fax: (617) 495-8696 Web Site Address: http://ksgwww.harvard.edu/~presspol/home.htm