Economy Media Criticism
By: Izzy, Josh, and Keller
Economics and the Media: A Study in the Effects of Perception and Misinformation
In an era of conspiracy theories, systematic disinformation, and high levels of distrust in government, perception is often more important than fact. While the major news outlets have often covered political events from the perspective of the writers, often a group of well-educated urban elite whose knowledge and political savviness allows them to see through misinformation, it is now important to also cover the perspective of a regular citizen who is less knowledgeable and more easily swayed by large amounts of misinformation. Understanding how the larger population views events, as opposed to the well-educated urban elite that most newspapers cater to, is important to better understand how an election might play out.
In terms of the media's coverage of the economy in relation to the 2020 election, there are many examples where more objective analyses from news outlets differ greatly from the perception of the larger population. This contrast is especially clear in the popular support behind much of Trump's misinformation. In one Tweet, Trump declared that he could "forgive these taxes and make permanent cuts to the payroll tax" if he were reelected, according to an article from NPR news by Matthew S.Schwartz and Tamara Keith. While this article illustrates the incongruity of Trump's statement
with the words of the Constitution, it fails to examine how a statement of this magnitude (receiving over 130,000 likes on Twitter) could potentially still influence a large amount of the population. It is necessary for these outlets to not only point out misinformation, but examine how this misinformation could still be effective for Trump and present ways in which to prevent misinformation from swaying large amounts of the population who perhaps don't read newspapers.
The same process of misinformation can also be used as a method to negatively sway voters' opinions. In past presidencies, a vice president has followed the lead of the president in terms of policies. However, for Joe Biden and Kamala Harris' campaign bid, many critics have neglected this conventional political practice, and use Harris' slightly more liberal leaning policies during her own bid as justification for tearing down their collective candidacy. Critics will point to the differences in Biden's economic recovery
package, which offers $1200 monthly checks for the unemployed, and Harris' plan, which proposes $2000 dollars and a stop to all evictions and foreclosures, a declaration that Biden hasn't yet made. Despite Harris' willingness to follow Biden's plan and put aside many of her own policy aims, one critic quoted in an article by the Washington Post claims that Harris' policies could cost up to "$40 trillion...over the decade." Similar to the NPR article, this article illustrates a skewed presentation of information, but fails to evaluate how this skewed view will affect the more general population and Joe Biden's chances at the election.
In both examples regarding the current president, Donald Trump, and presidential candidate, Joe Biden, a lack of value placed on how these candidates' platforms, actions, and beliefs are perceived and effected by misinformation can have alarming consequences. One consequence is that these sources overlook the opinions and beliefs of a percentage of the population prone to political manipulation. This percentage of the population who are often less politically active or well educated can be responsible or fall privy to the factual inaccuracies of politicians. The people, for example, who didn't believe in the coronavirus after Trump called it a "hoax" and played it off as "China's virus" were often the ones getting sick from the virus and spreading it. This group of people also makes up a large portion of voters. Failing to fully evaluate the role of perception and misinformation will provide a misleading view of how election results might look.