The ubiquitous CNN pundit on Larry King last night:

KING: Could the pundits be wrong?

DAVID GERGEN: Absolutely. Absolutely. It was a wonderful piece in the Wall Street Journal this last week by Josh Lerner. He was a really interesting young man who went back to a lot of political science and said more often than not, pundits are wrong.

You know, we have a worse record than if you just did it randomly in terms of predicting the--you just flip a coin and you would come out with better predictions.

Take his advice, please.

But seriously: Dean Baker from CEPR has one of the best short takes on elections and media coverage over at the Politico, which is worth posting in full:

There is a serious problem with our political culture and is centered on the news media. The media take no responsibility for informing the public on the issues that will affect their lives.

Rather they focus almost exclusively on trivia and quirks. Of course the candidates respond to this, knowing that any effort at dealing with issues in a substantive way will be ignored. Instead of talking about real issues, they jump full force go along with the focus on nonsense.

How many people know that Social Security will be fully solvent for decades into the future, according to all projections? How many people know that the per person cost of healthcare in the United States is close to twice as much as in countries like England and France, both of which enjoy much longer life expectancies? How many people know that the projections of huge long-term deficits are entirely the result of our broken healthcare system? If our healthcare costs were like those in any country with a longer life expectancy, then the U.S. projections would show huge surpluses.

It is the media's job to give this information to the public. They don't have time to do the research on their own. If we evaluated the media by the same standard as we evaluate teachers (i.e., are the students learning?), we would have to fire almost every last reporter in the United States, because the public is not learning.

The effort by rich business interests to buy campaigns would also be considerably less effective if the media reported on what was taking place. For example, BP, Citigroup and Goldman Sachs may consider big contributions to a candidate to be a much worse investment if they knew that their contributions would lead to a major article that explained that BP, Citigroup or Goldman was giving money to candidate Smith because they know that Smith will let them wreck the Gulf without paying compensation and will take everyone's money and give it to the Wall Street banks.

Unfortunately, we don't get much real news. We get stories about witchcraft and Aqua Buddha. Until we get better media, we will not get better politics.

Rep. Paul Ryan is the Republican leader most often touted as a serious policy wonk.  His plan to "fix" Social Security was recently evaluated by the chief actuary of the Social Security Administration. As the Washington Post notes in an article today (10/21/10), Ryan's plan "would slice initial benefits by about a quarter for middle-income Americans who turn 65 in 2050."

So why is the Post's headline "Republican Rep. Ryan's Social Security Plan Would Cut Benefits for High Earners"? While it is true that the wealthy would see benefit cuts, it would seem more important to note how his plan would affect most people.

Economist Dean Baker (Beat the Press, 10/21/10) further points out that by comparing benefits under Ryan's plan in 2050 with benefits today--rather than with the benefits retirees are currently scheduled to get in 2050, which are 48 percent larger than today's--the Post is greatly understating the scale of the cuts. And Ryan's proposal to raise the retirement age to 70 will cut everyone's benefits, not just "high earners"--however you define them.

According to the Post article, by Lori Montgomery, "With congressional elections less than two weeks away, the Ryan plan has been a frequent target for Democrats accusing the GOP of plotting to gut Social Security." The Post seems determined to disguise the fact that these accusations have a great deal of truth to them.

Sunday's Washington Post (10/10/10) featured a story by Jon Cohen and Dan Balz that led with this claim:

If there is an overarching theme of election 2010, it is the question of how big the government should be and how far it should reach into people's lives.

The piece is actually an explanation of the results of a new poll conducted by the Post along with the Kaiser Family Foundation and Harvard University. As Dean Baker noted (10/10/10), "There is absolutely nothing in this article that supports this assertion." He is correct. The Post's report deals with the supposedly conflicted nature of public opinion, where people complain about the performance of the federal government but then also express strong support for certain government programs. Even this seems a tad oversold; one can very easily think highly of Social Security and believe in additional government spending to spur the economy while also having little confidence "in the government's ability to solve problems."

So why is there this "big government" framing of the issue, then?  Baker points out that certain politicians benefit from it:

There are no candidates anywhere in the country who are running in support of "big government," there are candidates who are running in support of programs which have varying degrees of support. There are many candidates (virtually all Republicans) who are running against "big government." While this position has nothing to do with the world (we all oppose waste, fraud and abuse; the question is always the status of specific programs), it is certainly helpful to the Republicans to have the election framed in this way.

And in his column today (New York Times, 10/11/10) , Paul Krugman helpfully pushes back against this entire theme:

Here's the narrative you hear everywhere: President Obama has presided over a huge expansion of government, but unemployment has remained high. And this proves that government spending can't create jobs.

Here's what you need to know: The whole story is a myth. There never was a big expansion of government spending. In fact, that has been the key problem with economic policy in the Obama years: We never had the kind of fiscal expansion that might have created the millions of jobs we need.

A Washington Post article (4/23/10) about the International Monetary Fund focused on the advice it is offering for the United States. The piece notes that this is somewhat unusual. Even stranger, though, is the Post's description of IMF officials as folks who "have a long history of stabilizing economies and solving global financial problems."

This might come as news to those who've been on the receiving end of the IMF's advice. As economist Dean Baker put it at his Beat the Press blog (which has a new home at cepr.net--bookmark it!):

Back in the '90s, the IMF came to be known as the "Typhoid Mary" of emerging markets as its policy prescriptions led to sharp economic downturns in one country after another. It tried to impose a harsh austerity plan on Argentina in 2001 and did everything it could to sabotage its economy when the country refused to go along. Its sabotage effort included economic growth projections that were likely politically motivated, since they consistently under-projected growth. This would have the effect of scaring away potential efforts. By contrast, the IMF consistently over-projected Argentina's growth in the years when it was following policies recommended by the IMF.

The New York Times (9/13/09) attempted to fact check a Barack Obama speech on healthcare. By all appearances, this is in the regular, non-satirical edition of the paper:

Mr. Obama opened his 40-minute speech with what he called "disturbing news": a report from the Treasury Department that, he said, "found that nearly half of all Americans under 65 will lose their health coverage at some point over the next 10 years” and that “more than one-third will go without coverage for longer than one year."

In fact, that is not precisely what the department found when it analyzed data from a University of Michigan survey that tracked the health insurance status of more than 17,000 Americans from 1997 to 2006.

The survey found that 47.7 percent had lost coverage at some point during those 10 years for one month or more, and that 36 percent lacked coverage for at least one year during that time, though not necessarily 12 months consecutively. Mr. Obama extrapolated those statistics to predict what might happen in the future.

Critics say that the president, who has deplored the "scare tactics" of his opponents, is now employing scare tactics of his own.

Huh. In case you didn't follow that: Obama cited a study with some striking numbers on workers losing their health insurance. That's indeed what the study found....  BUT, explains the Times, his presentation is misleading because the future could be radically different from the very recent past. Or as Dean Baker put it, "President Obama was making extrapolations about the future based on the past. Next thing he'll be telling us that black is white and night is day. This is why we need an independent media."

A September 7 Washington Post report on Japanese healthcare claims that "more than one-third of the workers' premiums are used to transfer wealth from the young, healthy and rich to the old, unhealthy and poor." Which Dean Baker (Beat the Press, 9/7/09) understatedly calls "a striking statement":

Fire insurance transfers wealth from people who don't have house fires to people who do. Car insurance transfers money from people who don't have car accidents to people who do. This is the basic concept of insurance. It protects people from bad events, transferring money from people who don't have bad events to those who do. In other words, this quote is telling us that Japan's health insurance system is operating like a health insurance system.

The article is also quick to tell readers that Japan's system may be unsustainable. Its subhead is: "Aging population could strain system." It is worth noting that Japan's population is already far older than the U.S. population.

"If the United States had the same age distribution as Japan," writes Baker, "its healthcare costs would almost certainly already be above 20 percent of GDP, compared to the current 17 percent." Listen to the FAIR radio program CounterSpin: "Trudy Lieberman on Healthcare Reform" (8/14/09).

"Robert Samuelson Doesn't Like Trains" is what Dean Baker (Beat the Press, 8/24/09) takes to be "the unifying theme from his column today, since his arguments against high-speed rail do not make a lot of sense."

In his August 24 broadside against what he dubs Barack Obama's "Rail Boondoggle," Samuelson trots out the tired argument against "almost $35 billion in subsidies into Amtrak" that "the federal government has poured" in the last four decades--with the usual corporate pundit omissions, like the fact that, as long ago as 1994 it was determined that "hidden subsidies for drivers amount to well over $2 for every gallon of gasoline sold."

Beyond that, "Samuelson tries to tell us that trains might be useful in Japan and Europe, but they won't work in the United States":

He tells readers that:

Densities are much higher, and high densities favor rail with direct connections between heavily populated city centers and business districts. In Japan, density is 880 people per square mile; it's 653 in Britain, 611 in Germany and 259 in France. By contrast, plentiful land in the United States has led to suburbanized homes, offices and factories. Density is 86 people per square mile.

The density for the United States as a whole would be relevant if the plans were to build a train network going from Florida to Alaska, but that is not what is on the agenda. Instead, the issue is about deepening and improving the network in relatively densely populated parts of the country, like Ohio (277 people per square mile), New York (402) and New Jersey (1,134). The population densities of much of the United States are very comparable to the regions in Europe through which high-speed rails travel.

Baker then tells how "Samuelson also bizarrely compares long-distance train with the 140 million daily trips to work each day," even though "most people do not travel between cities every day, so it's not clear what the point of the comparison is."

Recapping, Baker writes that "Robert Samuelson doesn't like trains. He told us that this morning in his column." However, "he didn't tell us anything else."

See the FAIR magazine Extra!: "The Railroading of Amtrak: Trains, Planes and Automobiles Held to Different Standards" (7–8/02) by Christopher Ott.

Economist Dean Baker (Beat the Press, 8/9/09) sees the Washington Post as simply "keeping with its strict editorial policy of only letting others tell readers what 'populists' think," when publishing its August 9 "front-page article on setting executive compensation at banks receiving bailout money"--one which "never presented the views of an actual populist."

Instead, Baker writes "readers got to see the comment of Robert Profusek, a lawyer at Jones Day who is identified as having advised major banks on compensation matters," and Linda Rappaport, "head of the executive compensation practice at the firm Shearman & Sterling"--both of whom unsurprisingly argue for maintaining high executive pay in order to attract "talent" that will "make the money for the shareholders."

Baker voices the unspoken aspects of this assertion:

If the Post had solicited the views of a populist, or an economist, they might have told readers that much of what the banks earn comes directly at the expense of consumers and businesses....
The public has no obvious interest in subsidizing traders to speculate in financial markets. If the speculators win, then the loans that Goldman and the others receive will be repaid, but this repayment will only be a portion of the higher prices paid by consumers and lower profits earned by producers as a result of Goldman's speculation.

And, "moving beyond the world of speculation," Baker doubts that "if most of these individuals were replaced by the person next in line...the bank's profits would suffer in any big way." Which means that "these high salaries are just a drain on the bank, its shareholders and the taxpayers. But you won't see this argument presented in the Post."

Listen to the FAIR radio show CounterSpin: "Robert Johnson on AIG Bonuses" (3/20/09).

Quipping that "usually newspapers are big defenders of free speech, but not the Washington Post," economic reporting critic Dean Baker (Beat the Press, 8/2/09) takes down the paper's recent piece giving over "nearly 2,000 words to complain that a website had ripped off" one reporter's story.

Careful to say that "the problem was not that the website had plagiarized the piece"--indeed, the "story was credited and even linked to by the website, which was a major source of readers for the original article"--Baker tells us that the Post "is upset that the website may have made money off his work, because it sells ads based on viewership."

The Post "wants 'news organizations' to have the right to sue others that use their work without permission and profit from it"--even though, as Baker writes, "if people opt to read the piece on another website rather than the Post, then there must be some reason. Obviously they prefer something about this alternative venue":

If the protectionist measure advocated in this piece succeeded in shutting down the competition, then there would be a clear loss to readers. This loss would likely dwarf the loss to consumers that the Post routinely whines about so loudly when anyone suggests a tariff on imports or any other barrier to trade. After all, those forms of protection rarely add more than 10–15 percent to the price of a product. In this case, the Post's proposal may make the product unavailable altogether. Yet again, we see that protectionism is just fine with "free traders." The only issue is who is being protected.

Finally, let's consider what the enforcement of the Post's measure looks like. First, who is a "news organization?" Is this a title that one registers for with the government? Does the Post get the title but not its website competitors? I suppose those big bucks dinners with lobbyists and policymakers really are worth something.

As a practical matter, it would be an incredible affront to the First Amendment if the Post and other major newspapers and established news outlets were given any special ability to sue under such an act, compared to websites, or for that matter think tanks.

Going with his usual inclination to "think this one through for a moment," Baker finds the whole argument somewhat moot, considering how the paper's reporter "does not even know that he was harmed by the website piece." In fact, "it is entirely possible that more people viewed his piece on the Post's site as a result of the version appearing on the website."

Read lots of related content in the special Future of Journalism issue of FAIR's magazine Extra!: "Did Google Kill the Newspaper Star?" (7/09) by Peter Hart.

Dean Baker (Beat the Press, 7/21/09) has synopsized the latest fiasco of a David Brooks column under the headline "David Brooks Wanted Tax Increases to Pay for Stimulus"--since, Baker writes, "that is presumably the implication of his complaint that the Democrats paid for the stimulus package 'with borrowed money.'"

Predictably, "this is not the only peculiar item in his column. He also claims that only 11 percent of the stimulus will be spent in the first seven months of the program." Even though, as economist Baker explains, the "Congressional Budget Office puts the figure at 20 percent, which doesn't seem bad for a program that is just getting started and should be spent out over time in any case." And

then, in full Republican talking point mode, Brooks tells us:

The House [health care] bill adds $239 billion to the federal deficit during the first 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office. It would pummel small businesses with an 8 percent payroll penalty. It would jack America's top tax rate above those in Italy and France. Top earners in New York and California would be giving more than 55 percent of earnings to one government entity or another.

Let's see if we can rewrite this slightly:

The House bill adds an amount equivalent to 10 percent of the spending on the Iraq and Afghan wars to the federal deficit during the first 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Some small businesses will end up converting as much as 8 percent of their wage bill into healthcare insurance for their workers. The richest 1 percent will see an increase in their marginal tax rate, but it will still be lower than in most European countries. And the effective marginal tax rate for the wealthy will still be far lower than the marginal tax rate and reduction in benefits that most moderate income families face.

Baker's version of the same points renders somewhat silly the sentiment he attributes to Brooks' screed: "Are you scared?"

Stating quite succinctly how "there is an ongoing issue about whether global warming deniers should be treated seriously by the media, given that they have about as much scientific support for their position as the flat-Earth crew," economist Dean Baker (Beat the Press, 7/11/09) notes how the July 11 "New York Times goes them one better in finding a global warming ignorer":

Apparently, Ben Stein has never heard about global warming. How else can someone interpret this paragraph:

I don't believe we need to do something radical about energy, but even assuming that we do, why do it right now? Do we need to take one of the few sectors that is working like clockwork through the recession--oil refining--and wring its neck by making it pay for pollution "cap and trade" credits? Why attack a healthy industry when so many other sectors are ill? What is all of this anger at Big Oil, which has not done anything blameworthy, all about? Why endlessly beat up the companies that keep the country going?

He then goes on to complain about the Obama administration's efforts to change the laws on foreclosures. This would be a good idea, except the Obama administration is not working to change the laws on foreclosure.

Baker explains that "Stein is opposed to this plan because he is worried that it will further discourage mortgage lending," even though "there is no problem of mortgage lending at present. Mortgage rates are near historic lows and the Mortgage Bankers Association applications index indicates that few people are having trouble getting mortgages." Baker is impressed with how, "once again, Ben Stein distinguishes himself by how many things he can get really seriously wrong in a relatively short column."

Writing at his regular Beat the Press blog (7/8/09), economist Dean Baker says that the New York Times' David Leonhardt "rightly complains that President Obama's health care plan does nothing to change the incentives for doctors to prescribe expensive forms of care, even when there is no evidence that this care will lead to better outcomes." But "Leonhardt fails to take the extra step and ask why this care is expensive":

In most cases, the care is more expensive because it involves expensive medical equipment and drugs, with a healthy dash of high doctors' fees as well. The reason that medical equipment and drugs are expensive is that they have government-granted patent monopolies. In the absence of such monopolies, medical equipment and drugs would be cheap in nearly all cases. The huge patent rents that these monopolies allow medical supply companies and drug companies to earn also give them incentive to mislead doctors and the public about the benefits of their products.

The patent monopolies are justified as being necessary to support the development of new equipment and drugs; however, there are more efficient alternatives. However, that would require bigger thinking than NYT columnists are yet prepared to undertake.

This being far from a new story, the Times really has no excuse for ignoring the factors described by Baker, except maybe that they're corporate media reporting on corporate medicine--and don't worry, Baker tells us that "the WaPo has the same problem." See FAIR"s magazine Extra!: "Media on Medicare: Don’t Mess With Success—or Corporate Profits" (1–2/07) by Julie Hollar and Jim Naureckas.

Reacting to media noise over the economic costs of the Waxman-Markey environmental bill currently before the U.S. Congress, Dean Baker (ZNet, 7/1/09) looks to the damages of a different annual spending bill, this one perpetually unexamined in corporate news:

Global Insight projected that after 20 years of higher defense spending, annual car sales would be down by more than 700,000. Housing starts would be almost 40,000 lower. Exports would be 1.8 percent lower and imports would be 2.7 percent higher, leading to a trade deficit that was almost $200 billion larger. The model also projected that there would be nearly 700,000 fewer jobs as a result of the higher level of defense spending.

In short, the economic harm projected from high levels of military spending is far larger than the damage projected from the Waxman-Markey bill. Given this situation, we should expect that all the oil and coal industry folks who are now so concerned about the average family's well-being would have been screaming about the economic pain that would result from sustaining the Iraq War levels of military spending.

Did anyone ever hear them raise this issue? Does anyone recall members of Congress giving speeches about how the job loss from the Iraq War levels of spending will be devastating? Does anyone recall any newspaper columns or editorials making this point? How about a news story that analyzed the economic impact of higher levels of military spending?

"For some reason," Baker says, "job loss and economic pain associated with the military are just not worth mentioning. These items only become newsworthy when the issue is saving the environment." Listen to the FAIR radio program CounterSpin: "Miriam Pemberton on Military Budget" (4/17/09).

Tying the urgent present-day topic of economic reporting in with the most pressing global emergency of climate change, Dean Baker has posted at his Beat the Press blog (6/29/09) on "What Does 'Free Trade' Have to Do With Taxing Greenhouse Gas Emissions?":

That is the question that the New York Times should have been asking in an article that reported President Obama's opposition to taxing imported items from countries that have not taken steps to curb greenhouse gas emissions. The point of his cap-and-trade program is to make items that require large amounts of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions more expensive, thereby discouraging their consumption.

If goods can just be imported from countries that have no tax on GHG, then the point of cap-and-trade is undermined, as goods that require large amounts of fossil fuels will just be produced abroad. It is understandable that importers and other special interest would be opposed to measures that prohibit this sort of evasion, but that has absolutely nothing to do with "free trade."

Baker notes that "the NYT completely misrepresents the issue by implying that this is somehow a debate over principles of free trade," when really "it is a debate of whether special interests will be allowed to import goods to undermine the limits set by a cap-and-trade bill for GHG emissions." For more on press distortions of Obama's cap-and-trade policies, listen to the FAIR radio show CounterSpin: "Mike Lillis on Climate Bill" (5/22/09).

Economist Dean Baker (Beat the Press, 6/20/09) has requested you try to "imagine a front-page Washington Post article that talked about how the United States had a shortage of small cars." He reasonable assumes such a piece would address "the limited capacity of the various small-car assembly plants" and "discuss the amount of lead time needed to build new plants. It would also talk about the need to raise small-car prices because it is so much more profitable to build big cars":

Imagine that the article never once mentioned the possibility of importing small cars. That's the front-page Washington Post (a.k.a. "Fox on 15th") editorial warning readers that "Primary-Care Doctor Shortage May Undermine Reform Efforts."

Yes, the United States already has a shortage of primary-care physicians. Any serious reform plan will make this shortage worse by cutting back our excessive reliance on specialists. However, primary-care physicians can be trained (to our standards) anywhere in the world. There are millions of very smart people in the developing world who would be delighted to train to U.S. standards and work for the $170,000 year (net of malpractice insurance) that our primary -care physicians. (Developing countries could train 2-3 physicians for everyone that came to the United States if we placed a modest tax [e.g., 10 percent] on the earnings of foreign-trained physicians and repatriated it to the home country.)

"Writing about the potential to increase the number of foreign-trained primary-care physicians in the United States by removing legal and professional barriers," Baker tells us, would only be possible "if the Post were not such an ardently protectionist newspaper.... However, trade never even enters the Post's discussion. It was only interested in telling readers about problems with President Obama's healthcare plan."