"Why can't the English teach their children how to speak? ... In America, they haven't spoken it for years." -- Henry Higgins in "My Fair Lady."
In the early days of radio, networks printed a pronunciation guide for their announcers, based on the most widely spoken dialect in America, known to linguists as the North Midland dialect, and to non-academics as Midwestern.
There were exceptions, of course, but most words listed in the guide used pronunciations favored by the dominant group of speakers with the highest social acceptability rating. That's a subjective judgment, and you can call it snobbery if you wish. If not, call it the most neutral dialect, the one least likely to be identified with a particular regional, social or ethnic group, and the one most likely to be easily understood by most people.
Soon, that mode of speaking became known as the Radio Dialect. Even today, most broadcast news folk use that dialect. The pronunciation guidebooks are long gone, and news announcers often read the copy cold. That is, without having read it over before going on the air.
How else to explain such recent pronunciations heard on network television as DEC-la-tory for de-CLAR-uh-tory (declaratory), where the stress is on the second syllable, not the first?
Or BRAH-va-doh for bra-VAH-doh (bravado), where the stress is moved forward to the first syllable? Or a-FLU-ent for AH-flu-ent (affluent; first syllable rhymes with cat)?
Either that -- reading the prepared copy cold -- or the TV speakers are not familiar with these words to begin with. True, they may have seen them in print, and they understand the meanings, but they have not heard them spoken.
Granted, spoken English has not matched the written system since the days of Geoffrey Chaucer and the Great Vowel Shift. (Don't ask. Consult your friendly neighborhood dialectology coach or phonetician.)
But there is a dialect that can be called Standard Spoken/Written English. And yes, it is subjective, but it enables speakers and writers to communicate, regardless of which of many dialects they may use in everyday exchanges with friends, family and neighbors. Otherwise, all would be chaos.
Moreover, here is a basic truth: Linguistically all dialects are equal. Each enables its speakers to communicate with each other easily. The only thing that gives one dialect more prestige than another is the prestige of its speakers.
And that is a social judgment, not linguistic.
Friday, January 8, 2016
Thursday, January 7, 2016
Packing the Rally
Credit TV journalists for exposing the tactics of Trumpistas as they restricted access to a political rally only to supporters of Donald J. Trump.
Some 20,000 tickets were distributed for the rally, to be held in a theater in Burlington VT that has a capacity of only 1,400. That total of free tickets was reached on Wednesday evening, 24 hours before the scheduled rally time, but the Trump organization continued to distribute tickets, according to news anchors on the MSNBC network.
At the door Thursday evening, those who hoped to attend were specifically asked if they were Trump supporters. If they said no, they were turned away on the threat of being arrested for trespassing. Even those who said they were neutral, and only wanted to hear what the Republican candidate said, were refused entry unless they declared their support for Trump.
Nonetheless, some anti-Trump protesters did get into the theater, presumably by claiming they were supporters, and when they raised their voices to heckle the candidate, Trump ordered them thrown out.
"Get 'em out," he said from the podium, on camera as TV news networks carried the rally speech live Thursday evening. "Don't give him his coat," Trump added. "Confiscate his coat," he told his security staff as they ousted the protesters. "It's below zero outside, confiscate his coat," he repeated.
The city of Burlington has a population of 40,000. Burlington is the home town of Democratic candidate Bernie Sanders.
Why Trump chose Burlington as a rally site, the largest city in a strongly Democratic site, is an interesting question.
Consider this possibility: By packing the crowd with his own supporters, drawing them from many miles away, Trump could "prove" his popularity, showing that the crowd packing the rally was overwhelming in his favor. This, in turn, could be extended to "prove" his popularity on a wider scale.
At root, according to an ancient principle of basic logic, this is the fallacy of composition -- that what is true for one small part of something is true for the whole.
Credit goes to journalists for exposing this fallacy.
Some 20,000 tickets were distributed for the rally, to be held in a theater in Burlington VT that has a capacity of only 1,400. That total of free tickets was reached on Wednesday evening, 24 hours before the scheduled rally time, but the Trump organization continued to distribute tickets, according to news anchors on the MSNBC network.
At the door Thursday evening, those who hoped to attend were specifically asked if they were Trump supporters. If they said no, they were turned away on the threat of being arrested for trespassing. Even those who said they were neutral, and only wanted to hear what the Republican candidate said, were refused entry unless they declared their support for Trump.
Nonetheless, some anti-Trump protesters did get into the theater, presumably by claiming they were supporters, and when they raised their voices to heckle the candidate, Trump ordered them thrown out.
"Get 'em out," he said from the podium, on camera as TV news networks carried the rally speech live Thursday evening. "Don't give him his coat," Trump added. "Confiscate his coat," he told his security staff as they ousted the protesters. "It's below zero outside, confiscate his coat," he repeated.
The city of Burlington has a population of 40,000. Burlington is the home town of Democratic candidate Bernie Sanders.
Why Trump chose Burlington as a rally site, the largest city in a strongly Democratic site, is an interesting question.
Consider this possibility: By packing the crowd with his own supporters, drawing them from many miles away, Trump could "prove" his popularity, showing that the crowd packing the rally was overwhelming in his favor. This, in turn, could be extended to "prove" his popularity on a wider scale.
At root, according to an ancient principle of basic logic, this is the fallacy of composition -- that what is true for one small part of something is true for the whole.
Credit goes to journalists for exposing this fallacy.
Tuesday, January 5, 2016
COLA Loses Its Fizz
The income gap is widening, with new research documenting how income for the ultra-rich 1 percent continues to rise even as income for those in the middle and below remains flat or, considering inflation, actually declines. This applies especially harshly to pensioners.
Yet, citing statistics, the government claims that the cost of living last year was flat, so there is no cost of living allowance (COLA) to justify an increase in Social Security retirement income this year.
The rationale was that the sharp drop in fuel prices, including gasoline, more than offset any increases in other cost of living, such as food, clothing and shelter. Therefore, the government said, no COLA would be needed. Pensioners who don't drive, of course, did not benefit from lower gasoline prices. Folks who depend on Social Security retirement income, however, do have to eat, pay rent and buy clothing. And while food, clothing and shelter are necessities, an automobile is not. A car, according to the data drones, is a luxury.
Officially, the Social Security Administration announced that because "there was no increase in the Consumer Price Index from the third quarter of 2014 to the third quarter of 2015," monthly benefits will not increase for 2016.
This, of course, did not consider increases in the Consumer Price Index for the final three months of 2015.
So while the rich get richer, thanks to the widening income gap, the rest of the population must cope with flat or declining income, even as the cost of living rises. Anyone who goes to a grocery store knows that. Nonetheless, the statistics of the past 12 months "prove" that the cost of living did not rise.
Here are some numbers, as reported in the New York Times on Monday, January 4: For those Americans in the top quarter of 1 percent of employed people, "their salaries rose 96 percent from 1981 to 2013, after taking account of inflation." And for top executives at companies with more than 10,000 employees, "overall pay jumped 140 percent versus a 5 percent drop for the typical employee."
The report quoted research by Nicholas A. Bloom, professor of economics at Stanford University, and four of his colleagues.
Separately, the Senior Citizens League, based in Washington, noted that the government has changed its COLA calculation method 18 times in the past 34 years. "Each time they've called it an improvement or a correction," the League said, "but each time the result was a lower COLA."
Moreover, the League said, Social Security recipients "have lost a staggering 22 percent of their buying power in the last 16 years."
The League is backing a petition drive to support legislation to reform the COLA calculation method as well as provide a $70 monthly increase in benefits.
The bill, which already has the support of 73 members of Congress, according to the Senior Citizens League, raise the income ceiling so wealthy individuals would pay more into the system. As things stand, employees stop paying into the Social Security retirement fund after their income reaches $118,500. However, half of all American workers earn half that amount -- less than $60,000 yearly -- while those in the rarefied quarter of 1 percent earn $640,000 annually. Yet their contributions to the Social Security fund stop at the $118,500 level.
Closing this "loophole," the League said, would put Social Security on a sound financial footing for the next 50 years, and prevent possible future benefit cuts. As it is, some analysts have said the Social Security fund would run out of money in about 20 years.
The bottom line is this: The wage and income gap must be closed, and one way to help do that is for Congress to authorize a one-time increase in benefits, and then reform the COLA calculation method.
So while it may be statistically true that the general, overall range of prices in America did not rise as of September of last year, they are rising now as the economy recovers and oil prices on the commodities market jump again in response to yet another Middle East crisis. In turn, this will lead to higher gasoline prices at the pump. And when the data drones take out volatile fuel and energy prices from last year's calculations, it's more than likely that the actual cost of living rose. Given events of the past few weeks, both in America and worldwide, those on fixed incomes till face an even harder struggle in 2016.
Given also that this is an election year, it behooves an alert politician to remember that pensioners vote, and they do so at higher rates than younger folk.
Yet, citing statistics, the government claims that the cost of living last year was flat, so there is no cost of living allowance (COLA) to justify an increase in Social Security retirement income this year.
The rationale was that the sharp drop in fuel prices, including gasoline, more than offset any increases in other cost of living, such as food, clothing and shelter. Therefore, the government said, no COLA would be needed. Pensioners who don't drive, of course, did not benefit from lower gasoline prices. Folks who depend on Social Security retirement income, however, do have to eat, pay rent and buy clothing. And while food, clothing and shelter are necessities, an automobile is not. A car, according to the data drones, is a luxury.
Officially, the Social Security Administration announced that because "there was no increase in the Consumer Price Index from the third quarter of 2014 to the third quarter of 2015," monthly benefits will not increase for 2016.
This, of course, did not consider increases in the Consumer Price Index for the final three months of 2015.
So while the rich get richer, thanks to the widening income gap, the rest of the population must cope with flat or declining income, even as the cost of living rises. Anyone who goes to a grocery store knows that. Nonetheless, the statistics of the past 12 months "prove" that the cost of living did not rise.
Here are some numbers, as reported in the New York Times on Monday, January 4: For those Americans in the top quarter of 1 percent of employed people, "their salaries rose 96 percent from 1981 to 2013, after taking account of inflation." And for top executives at companies with more than 10,000 employees, "overall pay jumped 140 percent versus a 5 percent drop for the typical employee."
The report quoted research by Nicholas A. Bloom, professor of economics at Stanford University, and four of his colleagues.
Separately, the Senior Citizens League, based in Washington, noted that the government has changed its COLA calculation method 18 times in the past 34 years. "Each time they've called it an improvement or a correction," the League said, "but each time the result was a lower COLA."
Moreover, the League said, Social Security recipients "have lost a staggering 22 percent of their buying power in the last 16 years."
The League is backing a petition drive to support legislation to reform the COLA calculation method as well as provide a $70 monthly increase in benefits.
The bill, which already has the support of 73 members of Congress, according to the Senior Citizens League, raise the income ceiling so wealthy individuals would pay more into the system. As things stand, employees stop paying into the Social Security retirement fund after their income reaches $118,500. However, half of all American workers earn half that amount -- less than $60,000 yearly -- while those in the rarefied quarter of 1 percent earn $640,000 annually. Yet their contributions to the Social Security fund stop at the $118,500 level.
Closing this "loophole," the League said, would put Social Security on a sound financial footing for the next 50 years, and prevent possible future benefit cuts. As it is, some analysts have said the Social Security fund would run out of money in about 20 years.
The bottom line is this: The wage and income gap must be closed, and one way to help do that is for Congress to authorize a one-time increase in benefits, and then reform the COLA calculation method.
So while it may be statistically true that the general, overall range of prices in America did not rise as of September of last year, they are rising now as the economy recovers and oil prices on the commodities market jump again in response to yet another Middle East crisis. In turn, this will lead to higher gasoline prices at the pump. And when the data drones take out volatile fuel and energy prices from last year's calculations, it's more than likely that the actual cost of living rose. Given events of the past few weeks, both in America and worldwide, those on fixed incomes till face an even harder struggle in 2016.
Given also that this is an election year, it behooves an alert politician to remember that pensioners vote, and they do so at higher rates than younger folk.
Sunday, January 3, 2016
Brevity
In print journalism, readers have the option of going back and reading again anything that's not clear. However, writers should not make them. Moreover, broadcast writing doesn't have that option. You only get one chance to get the viewer's attention, and give the information in a quick, understandable fashion. There is no instant replay button with a TV newscast.
There's also a presentation style favored by corporate types, in which the writer or presenter should tell them what he or she is going to tell them, then tell them, then tell them what he or she told them.
But there's a difference between a corporate presenter and a good journalist or teacher. Corporate types want the credit for having attended a presentation, without the bother of having to learn anything.
Our Dublin correspondent, a computer specialist, reported that he was asked to give a presentation on technical issues. Being an experienced teacher, he formulated some lecture notes, to be followed by class discussion and an assignment to build experience.
He was surprised at the corporate lack of understanding that a presentation is not the same as an educational experience.
It seems the participants expected a series of presentations without any work assignments.
News media don't have the time or space for the repetitious presentation format. A better style of writing (and teaching, for that matter) calls for brevity: Say what you have to say, be done with it and be quiet.
There's also a presentation style favored by corporate types, in which the writer or presenter should tell them what he or she is going to tell them, then tell them, then tell them what he or she told them.
But there's a difference between a corporate presenter and a good journalist or teacher. Corporate types want the credit for having attended a presentation, without the bother of having to learn anything.
Our Dublin correspondent, a computer specialist, reported that he was asked to give a presentation on technical issues. Being an experienced teacher, he formulated some lecture notes, to be followed by class discussion and an assignment to build experience.
He was surprised at the corporate lack of understanding that a presentation is not the same as an educational experience.
It seems the participants expected a series of presentations without any work assignments.
News media don't have the time or space for the repetitious presentation format. A better style of writing (and teaching, for that matter) calls for brevity: Say what you have to say, be done with it and be quiet.
Economic Politics
"The rights and interests of the laboring man will be protected and cared for -- not by the labor agitators, but by the Christian men of property to whom God has given control of the property rights of the country." -- George F. Baer, president, Philadelphia and Reading Railroad, 1901.
"I give (money) to all the politicians. Then, when I need something, they're there for me." -- Donald J. Trump.
Ultraconservative politicians and corporate executives manipulate government policy for their own economic gain. If employers had been providing adequate wages and working conditions for their workers, activist labor unions may not have been needed.
As it was, underpaid and overworked laborers organized unions to force what was, to them, morally right. However, students of history know that the wealthy elite support political candidates who will, in turn, enact legislation that favors those same supporters.
Government spending does, in fact, provide economic benefits, and that's as it should be. But when those tax and spending policies favor a few at the expense of the many, that's a problem that affects the economic health of the entire nation.
As noted on this blog in May, 2013, members of the petulant class believe that their status alone, as part of the wealthy one percent, entitles them to special benefits and special treatment, and they are surprised and insulted when they don't get it.
Such an attitude was widespread in the 19th Century, when industrialists believed they knew what was right and appropriate, therefore workers in the so-called lower classes should behave themselves and do what they were told.
Sound familiar? That same 19th Century attitude is unfortunately still around today, with some political candidates displaying their feelings that they know what's good for the country and their corporations, and therefore is good for the country. That may be true as far as it goes, but it's doesn't go very far. Former General Motors Chairman Charles Wilson, to whom that hubristic quote is attributed, really said that the company was part of the whole, and that government policy decisions work both ways -- what's good for one is good for the other.
As it is, the self-appointed guardians of the public morals combine morality with economics and politics, and invoke a divinity to endorse their arguments. The possibility that the same deity they invoke for their own purposes may have equal feelings for all others doesn't seem to apply. To them, the wealthy are a better class of people because they are wealthy, and the poor are poor because they deserve to be poor, as if poverty is somehow a moral failing.
"I did it, so can you," they proclaim. As if Shaquille O'Neal could say a Munchkin would have identical success in professional basketball.
"I give (money) to all the politicians. Then, when I need something, they're there for me." -- Donald J. Trump.
Ultraconservative politicians and corporate executives manipulate government policy for their own economic gain. If employers had been providing adequate wages and working conditions for their workers, activist labor unions may not have been needed.
As it was, underpaid and overworked laborers organized unions to force what was, to them, morally right. However, students of history know that the wealthy elite support political candidates who will, in turn, enact legislation that favors those same supporters.
Government spending does, in fact, provide economic benefits, and that's as it should be. But when those tax and spending policies favor a few at the expense of the many, that's a problem that affects the economic health of the entire nation.
As noted on this blog in May, 2013, members of the petulant class believe that their status alone, as part of the wealthy one percent, entitles them to special benefits and special treatment, and they are surprised and insulted when they don't get it.
Such an attitude was widespread in the 19th Century, when industrialists believed they knew what was right and appropriate, therefore workers in the so-called lower classes should behave themselves and do what they were told.
Sound familiar? That same 19th Century attitude is unfortunately still around today, with some political candidates displaying their feelings that they know what's good for the country and their corporations, and therefore is good for the country. That may be true as far as it goes, but it's doesn't go very far. Former General Motors Chairman Charles Wilson, to whom that hubristic quote is attributed, really said that the company was part of the whole, and that government policy decisions work both ways -- what's good for one is good for the other.
As it is, the self-appointed guardians of the public morals combine morality with economics and politics, and invoke a divinity to endorse their arguments. The possibility that the same deity they invoke for their own purposes may have equal feelings for all others doesn't seem to apply. To them, the wealthy are a better class of people because they are wealthy, and the poor are poor because they deserve to be poor, as if poverty is somehow a moral failing.
"I did it, so can you," they proclaim. As if Shaquille O'Neal could say a Munchkin would have identical success in professional basketball.
Saturday, January 2, 2016
MEGO Economics
"If you can't explain it to a 12-year-old, you don't understand it yourself." -- Albert Einstein
MEGO -- My Eyes Glaze Over
Our Dublin correspondent asks, "If the 'experts' on economics have such divergent views, how is the average person supposed to understand? As for politicians understanding, there is little chance of that. Mass media editors are not going to cover a subject if the audience switch off when their eyes glaze over."
The MEGO phenomenon is certainly a problem when trying to explain a potentially complex issue, but it's a writer's task to phrase it in such a way as to make it understandable. Writing at the college graduate level is fine for academics who already understand the issue, but for a general interest newspaper, it's important to write at a level the reader can understand.
Even the most complex issue can be explained at a seventh-grade level. This is not to say that the general public is unintelligent. The trick is not to bore them, or to talk over their heads. When writing about economics, aim for folks who don't have degrees in economics, but need to know about the issue anyway.
President Harry Truman has been quoted as wishing for "a one-armed economist," since so many were in the habit of saying, "on the other hand ..." Others are fond of suggesting that if you ask two economists a question, you'll get at least three answers. As it is, an economist or a politician can point to any given data set and "prove" nearly anything. Or as Mark Twain said, "Figures don't lie, but liars do figure." And Paul Krugman, the Princeton University economist and Nobel Laureate, has admitted that as a certified academic, he is quite capable of being as obtuse as any other academic, but he chooses not to, especially for his syndicated newspaper columns.
When readers and viewers in the general public don't understand an economic issue, it's hardly their fault, even as the problems have an impact on daily life. In a way, says our Dublin correspondent, it's similar to quantum mechanics, where there are three states -- yes, no and maybe.
This may well be true, especially when dealing with a continuing phenomenon. To drop another metaphor, "you can't step into the same river twice." In economics as a part of daily living, everything is always changing, so when economists attempt a prediction, they preface their forecasts with the "ceteris paribus" assumption. That is, "other things equal." And that can be a heroic assumption, to suggest holding all other contributing factors the same, with no changes, and just change one element, then such-and-so will happen. The problem is that in the real world everything is always changing. Some things may change more slowly than others, so it is possible to make some predictions. At the same time, the unexpected can jump in and change things immediately. The metaphorical river may continue its flow for years, but an earthquake can change its direction in seconds.
The task for news writers, then, is to bring an important topic to the general reader in such a way that it is easily understandable, even at the risk of being overly simplistic. Good writers, however, can overcome that risk, by talking to their audience, not at them.
MEGO -- My Eyes Glaze Over
Our Dublin correspondent asks, "If the 'experts' on economics have such divergent views, how is the average person supposed to understand? As for politicians understanding, there is little chance of that. Mass media editors are not going to cover a subject if the audience switch off when their eyes glaze over."
The MEGO phenomenon is certainly a problem when trying to explain a potentially complex issue, but it's a writer's task to phrase it in such a way as to make it understandable. Writing at the college graduate level is fine for academics who already understand the issue, but for a general interest newspaper, it's important to write at a level the reader can understand.
Even the most complex issue can be explained at a seventh-grade level. This is not to say that the general public is unintelligent. The trick is not to bore them, or to talk over their heads. When writing about economics, aim for folks who don't have degrees in economics, but need to know about the issue anyway.
President Harry Truman has been quoted as wishing for "a one-armed economist," since so many were in the habit of saying, "on the other hand ..." Others are fond of suggesting that if you ask two economists a question, you'll get at least three answers. As it is, an economist or a politician can point to any given data set and "prove" nearly anything. Or as Mark Twain said, "Figures don't lie, but liars do figure." And Paul Krugman, the Princeton University economist and Nobel Laureate, has admitted that as a certified academic, he is quite capable of being as obtuse as any other academic, but he chooses not to, especially for his syndicated newspaper columns.
When readers and viewers in the general public don't understand an economic issue, it's hardly their fault, even as the problems have an impact on daily life. In a way, says our Dublin correspondent, it's similar to quantum mechanics, where there are three states -- yes, no and maybe.
This may well be true, especially when dealing with a continuing phenomenon. To drop another metaphor, "you can't step into the same river twice." In economics as a part of daily living, everything is always changing, so when economists attempt a prediction, they preface their forecasts with the "ceteris paribus" assumption. That is, "other things equal." And that can be a heroic assumption, to suggest holding all other contributing factors the same, with no changes, and just change one element, then such-and-so will happen. The problem is that in the real world everything is always changing. Some things may change more slowly than others, so it is possible to make some predictions. At the same time, the unexpected can jump in and change things immediately. The metaphorical river may continue its flow for years, but an earthquake can change its direction in seconds.
The task for news writers, then, is to bring an important topic to the general reader in such a way that it is easily understandable, even at the risk of being overly simplistic. Good writers, however, can overcome that risk, by talking to their audience, not at them.
Friday, January 1, 2016
Econo Politico Mix
The economy is not a soap opera.
Economics and politics are inseparable, but you wouldn't know it from mass media news coverage.
As the election year starts, we can expect more and more emphasis on what the candidates say about themselves and about each other, with the poisonality of venom increasing as the weeks go by.
The more they rant about their own strengths and their opponents' weaknesses, the less we hear about plans for governance, and much less than that about economics. The reality, however, is that politics has always been intertwined with economics, ever since the ancient Greeks coined the words.
Initially, the term economics referred to how a household managed and used what was available. The term was then expanded to embrace the Greek "polis," which referred to a city-state. By the 19th Century, when the modern study of economics came into its own, the term used was "political economics." And in the mid-20th Century, high schools were teaching "home economics" to girls, while boys went to college to study "political economics." Fairness didn't enter into it. Fortunately, things have changed.
However, academics and journalists soon split the latter term and began to treat politics and economics as separate and distinct fields.
'T'ain't so, McGee.
Unfortunately, far too many news reporters avoid writing about economics because they feel the topic is "too hard." Corruption and fraud in business is easy to cover, of course, since the investigations are often done by prosecutors, who then feed the information to reporters. There are, of course, investigative journalists who do dig out corruption and fraud, and after the stories appear in print the legal beagles sniff out stuff to enhance their own reputations and record of convictions.
These stories, however, are less about economics than they are about criminality. Writing about economics is no more difficult than writing about any other topic. Granted, the stories may not be as flashy or juicy as the entertainment and gossip quality of catching a prominent figure with his metaphorical pants down, but economics is no less important. In fact, it's more important, because the health of an economy in a metropolis, state or nation affects all citizens.
Many reporters, moreover, mistake entertainment and gossip for importance, and take the easy road to covering a story. It's not that economics is more difficult, although it tends to be quieter. And part of the problem may be that classes in Economics 101 were, for many students, boring. The fault, therefore, lies with the academics, not with the students.
In addition, the problem was perpetuated in newsrooms, where senior editors treated the business page as mostly a nuisance, whose main purpose was to mollify executives and retailers who wanted to see their names in print as they promoted other executives and announced their profitable sales figures. Moreover, too many publishers caved in to threats from major advertisers to pull their ads unless they got favorable coverage.
In response, publishers instructed their senior editors not to cover certain industries or business fields, lest the newspaper lose revenue.
It takes a strong-willed, successful publisher and editor to resist such pressure. Unfortunately, only major metro dailies are financially strong enough to do that, and even they sometimes yield to advertiser pressure.
So that makes the business section, if there is one, an unwanted stepchild in the newsroom. Far too often, there is only one page devoted to local business, and that is usually slapped together by a general news editor who takes a few minutes to gather a stock market report and a couple of national stories from the newswire, and perhaps include a feature about a local business written by a general news reporter, send the layout to the general news copy desk where overworked copy editors zip headlines on the stories, and off goes the page to the press room while the reporters and editors return to the "real news" of crime, corruption and politics.
The reality, however, is that all three of those categories are at root economic issues.
Citizens turn to crime because they have no jobs, or are boxed out of "legitimate" opportunities by corrupt politicians or adverse social pressures.
Economics is the study of how a home, business, city or nation uses whatever resources are available. Economics 101 teaches that these resources are Land, Labor, Capital and Entrepreneurial Skill. By definition, Land includes not only the terrain, but also minerals, water and forestry. Labor deals with people and how they work the Land resources. Capital means the machinery and tools invested in for Labor to work the Land. And Entrepreneurs are those who organize and supervise the other three.
It ain't that hard, folks. All it takes is a little time and effort, and to realize that the national economy is not a soap opera.
Economics and politics are inseparable, but you wouldn't know it from mass media news coverage.
As the election year starts, we can expect more and more emphasis on what the candidates say about themselves and about each other, with the poisonality of venom increasing as the weeks go by.
The more they rant about their own strengths and their opponents' weaknesses, the less we hear about plans for governance, and much less than that about economics. The reality, however, is that politics has always been intertwined with economics, ever since the ancient Greeks coined the words.
Initially, the term economics referred to how a household managed and used what was available. The term was then expanded to embrace the Greek "polis," which referred to a city-state. By the 19th Century, when the modern study of economics came into its own, the term used was "political economics." And in the mid-20th Century, high schools were teaching "home economics" to girls, while boys went to college to study "political economics." Fairness didn't enter into it. Fortunately, things have changed.
However, academics and journalists soon split the latter term and began to treat politics and economics as separate and distinct fields.
'T'ain't so, McGee.
Unfortunately, far too many news reporters avoid writing about economics because they feel the topic is "too hard." Corruption and fraud in business is easy to cover, of course, since the investigations are often done by prosecutors, who then feed the information to reporters. There are, of course, investigative journalists who do dig out corruption and fraud, and after the stories appear in print the legal beagles sniff out stuff to enhance their own reputations and record of convictions.
These stories, however, are less about economics than they are about criminality. Writing about economics is no more difficult than writing about any other topic. Granted, the stories may not be as flashy or juicy as the entertainment and gossip quality of catching a prominent figure with his metaphorical pants down, but economics is no less important. In fact, it's more important, because the health of an economy in a metropolis, state or nation affects all citizens.
Many reporters, moreover, mistake entertainment and gossip for importance, and take the easy road to covering a story. It's not that economics is more difficult, although it tends to be quieter. And part of the problem may be that classes in Economics 101 were, for many students, boring. The fault, therefore, lies with the academics, not with the students.
In addition, the problem was perpetuated in newsrooms, where senior editors treated the business page as mostly a nuisance, whose main purpose was to mollify executives and retailers who wanted to see their names in print as they promoted other executives and announced their profitable sales figures. Moreover, too many publishers caved in to threats from major advertisers to pull their ads unless they got favorable coverage.
In response, publishers instructed their senior editors not to cover certain industries or business fields, lest the newspaper lose revenue.
It takes a strong-willed, successful publisher and editor to resist such pressure. Unfortunately, only major metro dailies are financially strong enough to do that, and even they sometimes yield to advertiser pressure.
So that makes the business section, if there is one, an unwanted stepchild in the newsroom. Far too often, there is only one page devoted to local business, and that is usually slapped together by a general news editor who takes a few minutes to gather a stock market report and a couple of national stories from the newswire, and perhaps include a feature about a local business written by a general news reporter, send the layout to the general news copy desk where overworked copy editors zip headlines on the stories, and off goes the page to the press room while the reporters and editors return to the "real news" of crime, corruption and politics.
The reality, however, is that all three of those categories are at root economic issues.
Citizens turn to crime because they have no jobs, or are boxed out of "legitimate" opportunities by corrupt politicians or adverse social pressures.
Economics is the study of how a home, business, city or nation uses whatever resources are available. Economics 101 teaches that these resources are Land, Labor, Capital and Entrepreneurial Skill. By definition, Land includes not only the terrain, but also minerals, water and forestry. Labor deals with people and how they work the Land resources. Capital means the machinery and tools invested in for Labor to work the Land. And Entrepreneurs are those who organize and supervise the other three.
It ain't that hard, folks. All it takes is a little time and effort, and to realize that the national economy is not a soap opera.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)