jump to last post 1-13 of 13 discussions (19 posts)

Why is the media coverage of economy consistently negative?

  1. breathe2travel profile image79
    breathe2travelposted 5 years ago

    Why is the media coverage of economy consistently negative?

    After 9/11, the stock market plummeted.  However, a less known reality is that 59 days later, on 11/9, the stock market had returned to its pre-9/11 status.  Why was that not heralded?  Why is the media consistently negative about the US economy, when dips and highs are part of a healthy, growing economy?

  2. conradofontanilla profile image82
    conradofontanillaposted 5 years ago

    For one, it depends on who owns the media outfits. These protect the interests of the owners. For another, the economy might the the area where Obama is weak so vulnerable for attack. For another, the writers may not know that the economy is half under the control of the president and half or more under the control of the Federal Reserve Bank. Obama has scored high on the political side especially as it is his administration that had culminated the perpetrator of 11/9 not a Republican who could only get Saddam, a mere substitute.
    The U.S. economy is high or low according to the wishes of the owners of the Fed.

  3. MobyWho profile image61
    MobyWhoposted 5 years ago

    For the sake of your sanity, don't believe everything you hear from the media. For their part, it's a gamble. If they're positive, and the market goes up moderately, it's hum-drum. If they predict doom and players sell, they're brilliant and praised for the alert. Don't forget we're in a volatile political time too. Much of media 'coverage' is manipulation for election purposes. Nobody will pay attention to them if everything is going along smoothly. They survive on crises; 'exclusive', 'just in', etc. Am I skeptical? You bet! It's entertainment.

  4. girlgonestrong profile image61
    girlgonestrongposted 5 years ago

    Probably for the same reason that when thing were roaring back in 2005-2008, they just kept talking about how great things were.  The media isn't very good at talking about upcoming trends.  They are pretty much fixed in the present.  If they make any predictions one way or another and they go wrong, the outlet has egg on its face.  If they just talk about how things are right now, then they don't have this issue and regardless of what the stock market is doing, the man-on-the-street isn't seeing very much prosperity in his life right now.

  5. Attikos profile image80
    Attikosposted 5 years ago

    Sensationalism sells. The old newspaperman's saying, "If it bleeds, it leads," has been translated for the needs of the era of electronic media, but the principle remains unchanged: fearmongering attracts viewers. Media producers and editors use it just as politicians do, to grab attention.

    Ask yourself whether you would be more likely to listen to a broadcast segment led by "The stock market is back to normal, and nothing special is happening," or "The stock market is collapsing, and the world as we know it is coming to an end tonight!" It's no contest.

    1. breathe2travel profile image79
      breathe2travelposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      I'd rather read, "In keeping with its historical resilience, the stock market rose another 300 points today."  smile

    2. Bretsuki profile image80
      Bretsukiposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Aticos, your comment reminds me of Pulitzer's call to his artist in Cuba in 1898. "You provide the pictures. I'll provide the War."

      Your statement ring true.

  6. lburmaster profile image82
    lburmasterposted 5 years ago

    Because we like to scare people. If people believe all is well, who would watch the news? They want attention, they want viewer results. Simple as that.

  7. profile image0
    Larry Wallposted 5 years ago

    Things that happen quickly, like the market falling after 9/11 are news--by definition. What happens suddenly, as a result of a tragedy, or totally unexpected is news.
    The market going back up is news and was probably reported on the financial pages and maybe got a brief mention on some news outlets. But if something happens gradually, and a month is gradual in the world of news, then it is not going to get the same play.

    Remember the Iranian hostage situation during the end of the Carter administration. The capture of the hostages was big news for a few days. Then if fell into the "and the hostages are in their 10th day of captivity."  When the failed rescue attempt failed, it got coverage. WHen the successful release took place the day after President Reagan took the oath of office, it made big news.

    As a former reporter I can tell you it all has to do with timing.

  8. Bretsuki profile image80
    Bretsukiposted 5 years ago

    People seem to want to believe bad things.

    The end of the world is coming, the stock market is falling, the seas are rising. It all sells newspapers and fills our news programs.

    It is also helped by politicians who want to paint each others policies as bad. The reasoning by the politician is if you believe he is bad for you, then I can be your white knight who will save you from disaster. But first you should see no good for your future.

    In the end the media give us very little information. But a lot of speculation. They need to report news not generate it from rumour and gossip.

  9. gclitty profile image90
    gclittyposted 5 years ago

    Well I still think the economy is crap.  Until we climb out of our 16+ trillion dollar debt  obligations, which by the way are being precipitously increased at a rate of about another 1.5 trillion bucks a year, we won't be in any better fiscal shape.  The stock market is an indicator of people's perception of the state of the economy not the real structural  realities of our economy.  Really, you have to look at the fundamentals.  What does our import/export ratio look like?  Are we actually producing wealth and not just passing the same dollar around?  How much debt are we in?  These are the types of questions I ask when assessing the state of the economy.  The last place I go for interpretation on these matters is the media.  They are a business, and like all businesses their main goal is to make a buck.  If they can make a buck lying to you and get away with it they will do it.  Also, as others mentioned, negativity does attract viewers which translates into increased revenues from advertisers that feature ads during the breaks.

    1. profile image0
      Larry Wallposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Unfortunately everyone does not want the same detail as you and would rather hear about other subjects. I know as an old reporter, I wrote budget stories about how taxpayer money was being spent and most people were interested in paving streets.

    2. Attikos profile image80
      Attikosposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Sixteen trillion is just the direct debt due lenders on borrowed money. Add in other unfunded obligations borrowed from future generations, who have been given no choice in the contract, and federal debt far exceeds one hundred trillion. America can

  10. swordsbane profile image60
    swordsbaneposted 5 years ago

    Well I'd love to say that the reason the media reports negatively on the economy is because the economy deserves it, because it does.  The economy is worse than it's been since the Great Depression.  It's been heading down hill since and it is constantly picking up speed.

    However, I am reasonably certain that the media (or at least the people in the media who count) do not know and/or do not care about it.

    Instead, it is the same reason they report the negative that it's always been: Bad News sells.  Sensationalism works.  Drama, conflict, if it bleeds it leads.

    Do you really have to ask this question?

    1. breathe2travel profile image79
      breathe2travelposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      I don't have to ask any questions.  I was curious what others think.  I talk to some people and they seem to believe everything the media sells -

    2. swordsbane profile image60
      swordsbaneposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      That is the problem.  Too many people believe the regular media and cling to the idea that modern journalism has integrity and "They wouldn't lie to us."  What is it they say about a lie of omission?  About not telling the whole truth?

  11. cat on a soapbox profile image96
    cat on a soapboxposted 5 years ago

    Negativity in the press takes away our confidence and makes us more dependent on others instead of ourselves. If we become despondent, we give up hope and become oddly complacent. It's easier for others to take advantage of us in that state.

  12. Amaya31 profile image57
    Amaya31posted 5 years ago

    Sometimes, the media coverage becomes negative because that's what the economy reflects to them. However, there some who tend to exaggerate information. They tend to sensationalize things to gain more readers.

  13. profile image0
    alloporusposted 5 years ago

    Default for the majority of us is negative. Hence fear mongering media pander to this position and we respond by watching more news, reality TV and more cop shows than you shake a badge at. Good news simply can't compete. It is sad but true.